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.

Replication of a pseudoscientific finding

 The supposed (almost causal) correlation between IQ and rationality, in this new study below:

https://www.psypost.org/twin-study-suggests-rationality-and-intelligence-share-the-same-genetic-roots/

But why is it a pseudoscientific finding??

Because rational capacity is not well assessed by questions about hypothetical and specific situations, but by the factual quality of an individual's belief system, a much more objective way of accessing it. In other words, more is known about a person's level of common sense by their beliefs than by their answers on a test. Also because, generally, there is not just one "right" or "most rational" answer to specific everyday situations that require decision or judgment, if personal contexts can/usually vary, as well as the way we deal with them (influenced especially by our most intrinsic characteristics: personality, cognitive style...). And last but not least, because this is yet another correlation, even in the case of the "most rational" in "rationality tests", it seems that the number of people with high average IQs, especially verbal IQs, who have a high level of ideological fanaticism for certain irrational beliefs, such as the belief in egalitarianism, one of the most common in this population, seems to be disproportionate, demonstrating that a high cognitive capacity alone is not enough to function as a protective factor against chronic irrationality, nor that rationality is basically a discrete facet of cognitive capacities, as this study is claiming, even though it is believed to be a combination or recruitment of certain capacities, both cognitive and non-cognitive, that contribute to its expression and development, precisely a type of modulation (and that irrationality would logically be an opposite modulation).

This type of study is based on certain postulates that do not seem to match the observed and practical reality of human intelligence. The most relevant point here is that there is a g factor of cognitive abilities that results in a non-modular expression of intelligence, the opposite of what is perceived in reality. For if it is true that human intelligence is more generalist than that of other species, perhaps the most generalist of all, this is true in a comparative sense, because we continue to be more inclined towards cognitive specialization, even if less strict. For there is abundant evidence that corroborates this thesis, that human intelligence has a more modular nature, and that this diversity of specializations, consequently, tends to manifest itself in a more irregular manner among human groups. For example, the cognitive differences in visual-spatial and emotional abilities between men and women.

For even if it is possible to confirm the predominant occurrence of a regularity of individual performance in cognitive tests, it must be reiterated that this phenomenon is limited to psychometrics. This would explain, for example, an individual with high verbal-linguistic ability also presenting excellent mathematical performance in more general or superficial cognitive assessments, but, in practice, ending up developing more of his most prominent cognitive facet and still presenting a very average performance in non-verbal skills. However, this does not mean that intelligence differs individually only through channeling in certain capacities and that it ends up affecting other capacities, as if everyone presented the same initial potential and were to differ based on the process of choosing domains, but rather that these channeling or specialization tendencies are much deeper, structurally predetermined, according to the morphological/cerebral characteristics, in short, the physical-chemical characteristics of the individual, that is, cognitively reflective of these characteristics. It also means that there is a varied, but always limited, level of modulation of capacities and that, while this flexibility does not have an infinite or indefinable potential, there is a tendency in which the expressive emergence of certain cognitive (and psychological) capacities or characteristics tends to be related to a variably reduced expression of other characteristics or capacities, which seem to present a more antagonistic relationship. For example, visual-spatial capacities, much more developed in men, and socio-emotional capacities, much more developed in women; the difference between having a brain that pays more attention to inanimate elements and one that pays more attention to people and other living beings.

A translated excerpt from the text in the link shows the type of test that was applied to supposedly assess rational capacity, and that, in fact, it is a test of logical thinking, which is not exactly the same as rational thinking* and

which, in my opinion, can only be best assessed in real-world situations.

* Rational thinking is about the perception of facts, evidence or even a more impartial and objective analysis always aiming for greater understanding. Logical thinking, a priori, is about finding the underlying logic in a given context or situation, that which makes specific sense, although also related to the perception of an objective truth, not necessarily the same as rational thinking. This is the difference between finding the most correct answer to a problem and knowing that Cuba is not a democracy from any possible conceptual angle.

"Cognitive rationality was assessed using a specific test known as the Cognitive Reflection Test. This test presents individuals with problems designed to trigger an intuitive but incorrect response. For example, a question asks: "A bat and a ball together cost $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" The quick, intuitive answer is 10 cents, but the correct answer, which requires a little more thought, is actually 5 cents. The Cognitive Reflection Test uses several of these questions to see how well people can resist misleading intuitions and arrive at the logically correct answer."

As I have already mentioned and will say again in this text, a true test of rational capacity would precisely assess the level of rationality, which is very redundant, and, for this, nothing is more intuitive than doing so by assessing how centered on facts, evidence and consideration an individual's (personal) beliefs are, since they are much more important and influential, including in terms of intellectual discernment, of perceiving what is true and what is not, than getting correct answers on a test about hypothetical and very specific situations.

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

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

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

Disgenia?? Uma possível evidência de que a população brasileira está ficando ainda menos inteligente e racional.../Dysgenics?? Possible evidence that the Brazilian population is becoming even less intelligent and rational...

 A piora significativa da educação e das capacidades cognitivas dos estudantes brasileiros, mas por quê??

Efeito pós pandemia?? 

Não necessariamente. 

A percepção de falta de educação básica e de piora das capacidades cognitivas de muitos estudantes brasileiros não é um fenômeno de agora, mas que tem sido notado desde a algumas décadas. O que acontece é que tem piorado muito nos últimos anos. Até poderia ser um efeito direto desse um ano e meio de enclausuramento forçado pela pandemia de COVID-19. Mas parece que esse movimento de piora no quadro educacional e civilizacional brasileiro é bem mais profundo, novamente, pelo fato citado, de ser algo que se nota desde a um tempo anterior à pandemia e também porque esse tipo de piora dificilmente acontece apenas por fatores superficiais. Então, a pandemia até pode ter contribuído para acelerar esse movimento. Ou pode ter coincidido com uma piora esperada do mesmo, uma descida mais forte da curva descendente, um processo perigoso e grave que ameaça a sociedade brasileira e que não tem sido sequer acompanhado ou corretamente estudado por boa parte da "elite" acadêmica, se boa parte dela está doutrinada a acreditar em pseudociências "do bem" das ciências humanas e adjacências, que pregam que apenas uma "boa educação" já é suficiente para desenvolver um país ou que o meio é muito mais influente e determinante no desenvolvimento e no comportamento humanos... Mas parece minimamente sensato pensar que toda população apresenta um potencial médio de desenvolvimento intelectual e que a população brasileira não parece ser daquelas com o maior potencial. Também parece minimamente sensato pensar se traços mentais, como a inteligência e a personalidade, não são mais herdáveis ou mais geneticamente determinados do que pelas condições do meio. Eu sei que não nascemos sem cérebros pré-formados, que herdamos esses traços dos nossos pais ou dos troncos genealógicos aos quais eles se encontram. Eu sei que o meio tem uma influência, mas não acredito que determine quem somos ou quem podemos ser ou fazer. E se a partir dessas suposições, que não são baseadas em puro achismo, poderíamos pensar se a população brasileira não estaria passando por um processo de estupidificação massificada, no sentido de que, os menos inteligentes estão gerando mais descendentes do que os mais inteligentes e passando suas capacidades cognitivas mais modestas para os mesmos. E isso também inclui os mais e os menos racionais. Possível realidade que podemos perceber pelas diferenças de fertilidade entre os indivíduos com maior escolaridade com aqueles com menor escolaridade; também por grupos raciais e de classe social, em que também se percebem essas diferenças... Então, se a média de QI da população brasileira, que tem sido estimada com base em alguns poucos estudos de QI e por conversões ao mesmo de avaliações comparativas, como o PISA, tem se situado em torno dos 80-85 pontos, bem abaixo da média normal de um teste tradicional de QI, em torno dos 100 pontos, pode ser que essa média esteja caindo ainda mais, se a nossa "fração inteligente', aqueles que alcançam médias de QI de 105 ou mais, continuam deixando de se substituírem demograficamente, sem falar do efeito disgênico da mistura racial em massa, especialmente de indivíduos de grupos raciais em média mais inteligentes com indivíduos de grupos em média menos intendentes. 

Tudo bem "politicamente incorreto", herético à polícia de pensamento da "esquerda" burguesa. Mas e se for essa explicação mais condizente para o declínio da civilidade, da educação e da inteligência no Brasil??

The significant worsening of the education and cognitive abilities of Brazilian students, but why??

Post pandemic effect??

Not necessarily.

The perception of a lack of basic education and a worsening of the cognitive abilities of many Brazilian students is not a current phenomenon, but has been noticed for a few decades. What happens is that it has gotten much worse in recent years. It could even be a direct effect of this year and a half of confinement forced by the COVID-19 pandemic. But it seems that this movement of worsening in the Brazilian educational and civilizational framework is much deeper, again, due to the aforementioned fact, that it is something that has been noticed since a time before the pandemic and also because this type of worsening rarely happens just due to superficial factors . So, the pandemic may have even contributed to accelerating this movement. Or it may have coincided with an expected worsening of the same, a stronger decline in the downward curve, a dangerous and serious process that threatens Brazilian society and which has not even been followed or properly studied by a large part of the academic "elite", if a large part of it is indoctrinated into believing in "good" pseudosciences of good from the humanities and surrounding fields, which preach that just a "good education" is enough to develop a country or that the environment is much more influential and decisive in human development and behavior... But it seems minimally sensible to think that every population has an average potential for intellectual development and that the Brazilian population does not seem to be one of those with the greatest potential. It also seems minimally sensible to think about whether mental traits, such as intelligence and personality, are not more heritable or more genetically determined than by environmental conditions. I know that we are not born without pre-formed brains, that we inherit these traits from our parents or from the genealogical trunks to which they are localized. I know the environment has an influence, but I don't believe it determines who we are or who we can be or do. And if based on these assumptions, which are not based on pure guesswork, we could wonder if the Brazilian population would not be going through a process of mass stupidification, in the sense that the less intelligent are generating more offspring than the more intelligent and passing their more modest cognitive capabilities to them. And this also includes the most and least rational. Possible reality that we can perceive through the differences in fertility between individuals with greater education and those with less education; also by racial and social class groups, in which these differences are also perceived... So, if the average IQ of the Brazilian population, which has been estimated based on a few IQ studies and by conversions to the same of comparative assessments , like PISA, has been situated around 80-85 points, well below the normal average of a traditional IQ test, around 100 points, it may be that this average is falling even further, if our "intelligent fraction ', those who achieve an average IQ of 105 or more, continue to fail to replace themselves demographically, not to mention the dysgenic effect of an em masse racial mixing, especially of individuals from racial groups that are on average more intelligent, with individuals from groups that are on average less intelligent.

All of these is "politically incorrect", heretical to the thought police of the bourgeois "left". But what if this explanation is more suitable for the decline of civility, education and intelligence in Brazil?

Qual é o seu Q.C? Ou o seu Q.R? Ou o seu Q.I.E?? E o Q.I.C do seu país??/What is your C.Q? Or your R.Q? Or your E.I.Q?? What about your country's C.I.Q.?

 Apenas testes de Q.I??

Porque os testes tradicionais de inteligência ou de Q.I não são abrangentes quanto à todas as facetas da inteligência humana, particularmente as "qualitativas": racionalidade, criatividade e inteligência emocional, eu estou propondo com esse texto ampliar sua capacidade de estimativa de potencial cognitivo justamente pela introdução dos testes faltantes. Então, também teríamos, além do quociente de inteligência, os quocientes de criatividade ou Q.C, de racionalidade ou Q.R e o de inteligência emocional ou Q.I.E. Ainda proponho por um quociente de inteligência coletiva ou Q.I.C, que se refere ao nível intelectual ou da cultura de uma cidade, região, estado ou país, não apenas com base em resultados de  testes de QI tradicionais e de outros testes de inteligência de suas populações, mas também pelos seus níveis social, econômico/ecológico, cultural e/ou filosófico (intelectual e moral). E até acho bem pertinente compara-los metaforicamente com o funcionamento de um organismo, se uma sociedade tende a funcionar exatamente desse jeito. Pois os resultados mais esperados até poderiam surpreender muita gente, já que existem, atualmente, muitos países de "primeiro mundo" que têm adotado políticas francamente insanas, tal como às de incentivo ao multiculturalismo ou imigração em massa sem controle ou razão que realmente as justifique. Já em relação aos demais testes propostos, eu também tenho uns aconselhamentos: quanto aos testes de Q.C ou quociente de criatividade, adotar os que têm sido criados para avaliá-la, como o de pensamento divergente, mais uma análise pessoal de realização criativa, isto é, se a pessoa que está sendo analisada já apresenta algum trabalho desta natureza, e de buscar avaliá-la de maneira objetiva; quanto ao Q.R ou quociente de racionalidade, a minha sugestão difere da que estou fazendo para o Q.C, porque não aconselho adotar os testes de racionalidade que têm sido feitos, se não acredito que seja a melhor maneira de avaliar o nível de racionalidade, de avaliá-la por meio de perguntas sobre situações hipotéticas e específicas, e sim que sejam criados "testes" que analisem o nível racional de um sistema de crenças individual, por ser mais abrangente, na minha opinião, se podemos saber mais sobre o quão racional ou sensata uma pessoa está por suas crenças, pelo quão embasadas ou baseadas em evidências, fatos, ponderação... (eu fiz um texto demonstrando como poderia ser esse teste: "Teste de racionalidade") ; e, por fim, em relação ao Q.I.E ou quociente de inteligência emocional, sugiro pela adoção dos testes que têm sido criados para analisá-la, mas também sugiro o uso de outros métodos, se parece existir uma mitologia em torno desse tipo de inteligência, se o ideal não seria construir testes que realmente analisem essa capacidade, primariamente de reconhecer emoções próprias e dos outros, mas também, controle emocional, nível de empatia..., até para não confundi-la com nível de ajustamento social ou com tipo de personalidade, o primeiro dependente de fatores que não estão sob pleno controle do indivíduo, incluindo o segundo fator, se a inteligência emocional não é um tipo de personalidade, mas também de como a abordamos. Ainda acrescentaria um teste ou uma avaliação do autoconhecimento, que considero uma das capacidades mais importantes que podemos apresentar e desenvolver, por ser muito influente em como compreendemos e usamos nossas capacidades.

Como aconteceria essa expansão?? 

Os novos testes poderiam ser avaliados tal como são avaliados os testes tradicionais de Q.I, e em conjunto aos mesmos, pelo estabelecimento de médias de desempenho que seriam somadas e divididas com o número de testes para encontrar a média final. Poderia ser assim ou, então, pelo desempenho de cada novo teste, seria adicionado pontos à média dos testes de QI tradicionais. Por exemplo, pontuações altas em Q.C, Q.R e Q.I.E acrescentariam até 20-30 pontos. Ou pontuações baixas tirariam até 20-30 pontos... Ou nada disso e, ao invés de tentar expandir a capacidade de abrangência dos testes de Q.I e usar apenas testes de capacidade como meios avaliativos, abraçarmos a ideia mais sensata de adotar uma avaliação completa do indivíduo, que incluiria os testes tradicionais de inteligência e que também poderia incluir os novos testes propostos, além dos de personalidade. 

Just IQ tests??

Because traditional intelligence or IQ tests are not comprehensive regarding all facets of human intelligence, particularly the "qualitative" ones: rationality, creativity and emotional intelligence, I am proposing with this text to expand its ability to estimate cognitive potential precisely by the introduction of missing tests. So, in addition to the intelligence quotient, we would also have the quotients of creativity or CQ., rationality or RQ. and emotional intelligence or EIQ. I still propose a collective intelligence quotient or CIQ, which refers to the intellectual or cultural level of a city, region, state or country, not just based on results from traditional IQ tests and other intelligence tests of their populations. , but also by their social, economic/ecological, cultural and/or philosophical (intellectual and moral) levels. And I even think it's very pertinent to compare them metaphorically with the functioning of an organism, if a society tends to function exactly that way. The most expected results could even surprise many people, since there are currently many "first world" countries that have adopted frankly insane policies, such as encouraging multiculturalism or mass immigration without control or reason that really justifies them. Regarding the other proposed tests, I also have some advice: regarding the CQ or creativity quotient test, adopt those that have been created to evaluate it, such as divergent thinking, plus a personal analysis of creative achievement, if the person being analyzed already presents some work of this nature, and seeks to evaluate it objectively; As for the RQ or rationality quotient, my suggestion differs from what I am making for the CQ, because I do not advise adopting the rationality tests that have been created, if I do not believe that it is the best way to evaluate the level of rationality, to evaluate it through questions about hypothetical and specific situations, but creating  tests that analyze the rational level of an individual belief system, as it is more comprehensive, in my opinion, if we can know more about how rational or sensible a person is based on their beliefs, how grounded or based on evidence, facts, consideration... (I wrote a text demonstrating what this test could be like: "Rationality test"); and, finally, in relation to the EIQ or emotional intelligence quotient, I suggest adopting the tests that have been created to analyze it, but I also suggest the use of other methods, if there seems to be a mythology around this type of intelligence, If the ideal would not be to build tests that really analyze this ability, primarily to recognize one's own emotions and those of others, but also, emotional control, level of empathy..., even so as not to confuse it with the level of social adjustment or type of personality, the first dependent on factors that are not under the individual's full control, including the second factor, whether emotional intelligence is not a personality type, but also on how we approach it. I would also add a test or assessment of self-knowledge, which I consider one of the most important capabilities we can present and develop, as it is very influential in how we understand and use our capabilities.

How would this expansion happen?

The new tests could be evaluated in the same way that traditional IQ tests are evaluated, and in conjunction with them, by establishing performance averages that would be added and divided with the number of tests to find the final average. It could be like this, or else, due to the performance of each new test, points would be added to the average of traditional IQ tests. For example, high scores in CQ, RQ and EIQ would add up to 20-30 points. Or low scores would take away up to 20-30 points... Or none of that and, instead of trying to expand the scope of IQ tests and using only ability tests as evaluation means, we embrace the more sensible idea of ​​adopting a complete assessment of the individual, which would include traditional intelligence tests and which could also include the new proposed tests, in addition to personality tests.

Duas desinformações típicas sobre QI/Two typical misinformation about IQ

 "A maioria das pessoas pontuam na média, entre 90 e 110"

Realidade: populações diferentes tendem a apresentar médias diferentes. Por exemplo, a média de QI da população brasileira não é igual à média da população americana, se de acordo com os estudos que já foram feitos, inclusive em países próximos, até para serem usados como referências por aproximação, a primeira tem obtido médias em torno dos 85 pontos, enquanto a segunda tem obtido médias em torno dos 98 pontos. Aqui, acredita-se que a distribuição dos pontos em uma típica curva de sino é universal a todos os grupos e, portanto, indivíduos humanos. Só que não é bem assim que acontece...

"Todo indivíduo que pontua acima de 120-130 em testes cognitivos tradicionais é um gênio"

Um gênio... criativo?? 

Pontuar muito alto em testes de QI, a priori, é uma demonstração muito particular de excelência de desempenho. Até por existir uma tendência muito comum de se confundir excepcionalidade não-criativa de desempenho com genialidade, são muitos os que acreditam que uma pontuação elevada em testes de QI automaticamente também se configura em uma manifestação de genialidade. Isso poderia ser verdade, mas apenas se o conceito de genialidade fosse alterado para satisfazer essa tendência, que não parece muito apropriado, se isso o tornaria mais confuso ou descaracterizado, mais próximo de conceitos ainda mais expansivos, como o de inteligência e o de excepcionalidade, se o ideal na conceituação de termos abstratos é de especificá-los o máximo possível, para torná-los mais precisos e autênticos.

"Most people score on average, between 90 and 110"

Reality: different populations tend to have different averages. For example, the average IQ of the Brazilian population is not equal to the average of the American population, if according to studies that have already been carried out, including in nearby countries, even to be used as approximate references, the first has obtained averages in around 85 points, while the second has obtained averages around 98 points. Here, it is believed that the distribution of points on a typical bell curve is universal to all human groups and therefore individuals. But that's not quite how it happens...

"Every individual who scores above 120-130 on traditional cognitive tests is a genius"

A creative... genius??

Scoring very high on IQ tests, a priori, is a very particular demonstration of performance excellence. Even because there is a very common tendency to confuse exceptional non-creative performance with genius, there are many who believe that a high score on IQ tests automatically also constitutes a manifestation of genius. This could be true, but only if the concept of genius were changed to satisfy this tendency, which does not seem very appropriate, if that would make it more confusing or mischaracterized, closer to even more expansive concepts, such as intelligence and exceptionality. , if the ideal in conceptualizing abstract terms is to specify them as much as possible, to make them more precise and authentic.

A idade mental, de fato, não é "medida" ou refletida pelo QI.../Mental age, in fact, is not "measured" or reflected by IQ...

... mas a partir do nível de racionalidade de uma pessoa, que é estimado de maneira mais abrangente e precisa pela qualidade factual de seu sistema de crenças (e não por esses "testes de racionalidade" que comparam respostas de perguntas sobre situações hipotéticas e específicas), porque é por essa via que é possível saber o quão realista ou firmada em fatos/evidências ela está, isto é, o quão intelectualmente madura ou apta a aceitar fatos, mesmo se contradizem suas crenças e expectativas pessoais. 

A idade mental dos testes de QI equivale ao nível de desenvolvimento cognitivo de um ser humano (não em relação a todos os aspectos cognitivos), mas diz pouco ou nada sobre o nível de desenvolvimento psicológico ou emocional, que faz toda diferença, mesmo em relação a aspectos que têm uma aparência puramente cognitiva, por exemplo, capacidades matemáticas, se também dependem do quão desenvolvido está o autoconhecimento, este, por sua vez, dependente da inteligência emocional, especialmente da intrapessoal, por ser primário aos outros conhecimentos, especialmente quando aplicados em nossos contextos diários e se, inevitavelmente, estamos sempre aplicando nossas capacidades contextualmente. Como resultado, se nossa compreensão sobre nós mesmos, limites e potenciais, estiver muito distorcida, existe um alto risco de abordarmos contextos de maneira equivocada. Portanto, a idade mental, em sua totalidade, cognitiva e psicológica, se expressa pela racionalidade, por ser a expressão de nossas inteligências em tempo real, funcionando integralmente, e não isoladamente e em contextos hipotéticos, como os dos testes cognitivos; também por ser a nossa capacidade de discernir fatos de distorções ou mentiras e de, consequentemente, basearmos nossos comportamentos e julgamentos em evidências, especialmente se alcançar os níveis mais altos de racionalidade; e se uma das capacidades mais básicas da inteligência, não apenas da humana, é a percepção da realidade, anterior à própria capacidade de adaptação...

Como conclusão, e repetindo o que já foi dito, a idade mental, em sua totalidade, se trata do quão realistas ou maduros, intelectualmente, nos aspectos cognitivos e psicológicos ou emocionais, estamos, isto é, sobre todos os aspectos envolvidos. Não apenas sobre o quão avançados, medianos ou atrasados estamos em nossos desenvolvimentos cognitivos (em relação ou comparação aos outros) e que, aliás, têm uma boa dose de relatividade, se não alcançamos os mesmos níveis de desenvolvimento. 

...but from a person's level of rationality, which is most comprehensively and accurately estimated by the factual quality of their belief system (and not by those "rationality tests" that compare answers to questions about hypothetical and specific situations), because it is through this route that it is possible to know how realistic or grounded in facts/evidence she is, that is, how intellectually mature or able to accept facts, even if they contradict her personal beliefs and expectations.

The mental age of IQ tests is equivalent to the level of cognitive development of a human being (not in relation to all cognitive aspects), but it says little or nothing about the level of psychological or emotional development, which makes all the difference, even in relation to aspects that have a purely cognitive appearance, for example, mathematical abilities, if they also depend on how developed self-knowledge is, which, in turn, depends on emotional intelligence, especially intrapersonal, as it is primary to other knowledge, especially when applied in our daily contexts and whether, inevitably, we are always applying our capabilities contextually. As a result, if our understanding of ourselves, limits and potentials, is very distorted, there is a high risk of approaching contexts in the wrong way. Therefore, mental age, in its entirety, cognitive and psychological, is expressed by rationality, as it is the expression of our intelligence in real time, functioning fully, and not in isolation and in hypothetical contexts, such as those of cognitive tests; also because it is our ability to discern facts from distortions or lies and, consequently, base our behaviors and judgments on evidence, especially if it reaches the highest levels of rationality; and if one of the most basic capabilities of intelligence, not just human intelligence, is the perception of reality, prior to the ability to adapt...

As a conclusion, and repeating what has already been said, mental age, in its entirety, is about how realistic or mature, intellectually, in cognitive and psychological or emotional aspects, we are, that is, on all aspects involved. Not just about how advanced, average or delayed we are in our cognitive developments (in relation or comparison to others) and which have a good dose of relativity, if we do not reach the same levels of development.

Em defesa de um estereótipo: nerds mais inteligentes?/In defense of a stereotype: smarter nerds?

 Mas existem alguns estudos* sobre correlações entre QI, tipo de personalidade e tendências comportamentais que têm encontrado que, na escola e em outros ambientes sociais, os indivíduos mais populares tendem a pontuar mais alto em testes cognitivos que os indivíduos menos populares. Então, isso significa que o estereótipo do "nerd inteligente" foi refutado?? Não. Significa, primeiro, o que sempre falo sobre QI, de que os testes são bons, mas não são excepcionais para estimar a inteligência humana, por produzirem análises superficiais de desempenho, enfatizando capacidades técnicas e específicas, e desprezando algumas das capacidades mais importantes, particularmente a racionalidade e a criatividade. Segundo, sobre o quão mais "inteligentes" os mais "populares" tendem a ser, segundo esses estudos, também é discutível, afinal, comparações cognitivas entre grupos grandes costumam resultar em valores mais baixos, maiores apenas em um sentido comparativo. Tal como no caso de um estudo sobre aparência física e QI no Reino Unido em que foi encontrado que, aqueles de melhor aparência pontuaram, em média, em torno dos 105 pontos, enquanto que, os de pior aparência pontuaram em torno dos 90 pontos. Portanto, o ideal seria de estudar aqueles que pontuam mais alto, enfaticamente. Terceiro e, novamente, porque a qualidade também é muito importante, não basta ter um potencial cognitivo acima da média, mais geral ou específico, se não souber usá-lo, ou melhor, direcioná-lo. Então, pode ser que muitos desses indivíduos sociáveis e que pontuam alto em testes cognitivos usem as suas capacidades acima da média especialmente para se adaptarem socialmente, tal como um típico "normie", ou ainda pior, se especializando em pseudociências, enquanto que, parece ser indiscutível ou evidente que, dos indivíduos que mais se interessam pelo conhecimento, pelo seu valor intrínseco, e também aqueles que acabam se tornando cientistas, especialmente os mais capazes, tendem a apresentar um perfil tipicamente "nerd"**, até mesmo pela natureza praticamente causal desse tipo pelo interesse intelectual genuíno, a priori, como um "hobby" ou passatempo. Portanto, o mais importante, ainda não é pontuar alto em testes de QI, mas demonstrar proficiência no mundo real e um interesse genuíno pelo conhecimento, não apenas como um meio para um fim. E quarto que, não é todo "nerd" que é impopular ou nem todo popular que não é "nerd". Na verdade, existem nerds que são populares entre os da própria tribo. Portanto, também existe uma certa relatividade de perspectivas que deve ser levada em conta, se buscarmos por uma análise mais abrangente. 

* Também têm estudos que podem refutar ou problematizar esse achado, tal como o que descobriu que jovens de maior QI  tendem a perder a virgindade mais tarde que os jovens de QI médio, deixando implícito que não são os mais populares que tendem a pontuar mais alto nesses testes ou em outros similares que estimam e comparam desempenhos cognitivos. 

Ou o estudo que não encontrou uma relação entre popularidade e inteligência (ambos embaixo, nas fontes). Também tem outro estudo que encontrou que os "mais inteligentes' tendem a ter poucos amigos. 

** Nerd: que ou aquele que apresenta fortes interesses específicos, geralmente de naturezas científica, filosófica, política, artística ou cultural, não necessariamente o mesmo que "impopular". 

Fontes:

https://www.sebjenseb.net/p/whats-in-a-nerd

 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent

https://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796964

But there are some studies* on correlations between IQ, personality type and behavioral tendencies that have found that, in school and other social settings, more popular individuals tend to score higher on cognitive tests than less popular individuals. So does this mean the "smart nerd" stereotype has been disproved? No. It means, first, what I always say about IQ, that the tests are good, but they are not exceptional for estimating human intelligence, as they produce superficial analyzes of performance, emphasizing technical and specific abilities, and neglecting some of the most important abilities , particularly rationality and creativity. Second, how much more "intelligent" the most "popular" tend to be, according to these studies, is also debatable, after all, cognitive comparisons between large groups usually result in lower values, higher only in a comparative sense. As in the case of a study on physical appearance and IQ in the United Kingdom, which found that those with the best appearance scored, on average, around 105 points, while those with the worst appearance scored around 90 points. Therefore, the ideal would be to study those who score the highest, emphatically. Third and, again, because quality is also very important, it is not enough to have an above average cognitive potential, more general or specific, if you do not know how to use it, or better yet, direct it. So, it could be that many of these sociable individuals who score high on cognitive tests use their above-average abilities especially to adapt socially, just like a typical "normie", or even worse, specializing in pseudosciences, whereas, it seems be indisputable or evident that, of the individuals who are most interested in knowledge, due to its intrinsic value, and also those who end up becoming scientists, especially the most capable, tend to present a typically "nerdy"** profile, even by nature practically causal of this kind by genuine intellectual interest, a priori, as a "hobby" or pastime. So the most important thing is still not to score high on IQ tests, but to demonstrate real-world proficiency and a genuine interest in knowledge, not just as a means to an end. And fourth, not every "nerd" is unpopular or not every popular person is not a "nerd." In fact, there are nerds who are popular among their own tribe. Therefore, there is also a certain relativity of perspectives that must be taken into account, if we seek a more comprehensive analysis.

* There are also studies that can refute or problematize this finding, such as the one that found that young people with higher IQs tend to lose their virginity later than young people with average IQs, implying that it is not the most popular ones who tend to score higher in these tests or similar ones that estimate and compare cognitive performances.

Or the study that did not find a relationship between popularity and intelligence (both below, in the sources). There is also another study that found that the "most intelligent" tend to have few friends.

** Nerd: someone who has strong specific interests, generally of a scientific, philosophical, political, artistic or cultural nature, not necessarily the same as "unpopular".

Sources:

https://www.sebjenseb.net/p/whats-in-a-nerd

 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent

https://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796964

Sobre QI, inteligência, Doug e Skeeter/About IQ, intelligence, Doug and Skeeter

 Revisitando um velho texto e reafirmando o que defendi nele

Uns 8 anos atrás, quando só tinha um blog obscuro no qual escrevia os meus textos, na base da intuição, autoconfiança exagerada e equívocos estilísticos, escrevi um texto a partir de um episódio de um dos meus desenhos favoritos de infância, Doug Funny, que vi naquela época, acho que pela TV Cultura e que, se já tinha visto antes, não restava sequer um rastro de lembrança ou parecendo ser inédito pra mim. Nesse episódio, os estudantes da sala de aula do Doug, incluindo ele mesmo, é claro, fazem um teste de QI e quando os resultados do exame são liberados, o protagonista do desenho se decepciona com a sua pontuação, por ter tirado na média, e se impressiona com a pontuação do seu melhor amigo, Skeeter, por ele ter tirado no nível de superdotação. Se impressiona, mas mais no sentido de espanto, porque jamais imaginava que o seu amigo simpático, porém, abobado, pudesse ser tão mais inteligente que ele, um escritor precoce. Pois no texto "antigo", eu critiquei o exemplo exagerado de "lição de moral" que foi usado no episódio que buscou ensinar que as aparências podem enganar. Critiquei a ênfase unilateral em pontuações de testes de QI para reconhecer e determinar a inteligência humana, inclusive a genialidade, adotada no episódio e enfatizada em um momento de imaginação do Doug sobre o seu amigo, se comportando como um "cientista maluco". E concluí que, o mais importante não é o que testes de inteligência dizem, mas como que ela se expressa no mundo real. Então, por esse critério, a maturidade e o talento literário de Doug são mais impressionantes que a pontuação no "nível de gênio" do seu amigo. No entanto, por ser um desenho primariamente para crianças e pré adolescentes, não houve a necessidade de desenvolver os temas abordados no episódio. Por exemplo, não foi discutido ou mostrado se Doug pontuou na média de todos os testes, mas alto em sub testes relevantes ao seu talento para a escrita, como os de vocabulário e associação de palavras (o mais lógico), e que, mesmo usando apenas testes de QI como parâmetro de inteligência já tornaria a lição de moral proposta menos simplista e determinista. Mas mesmo se fossem exemplos verídicos e, na verdade, eu acredito totalmente que existam tais casos, apenas mostram, já por uma obra de ficção, que os testes de QI não são perfeitos na estimativa das capacidades humanas, se existem muitos falsos positivos, de Skeeters, bons para tirar notas altas em provas da escola, no vestibular ou concurso público, mas em termos mais puramente intelectuais, são tão comuns ou pouco impressionantes como a maioria das pessoas, e de outros casos de perfil oposto, de Dougs, que mostram excelência  de desempenho em seus interesses de fixação sem terem necessariamente respaldos de testes de inteligência, de testes, se já estão demonstrando suas capacidades em práticas mais objetivas e literais do que sugestivas.

 Revisiting an old text and reaffirming what I defended in it

About 8 years ago, when I only had an obscure blog on which I wrote my texts, based on intuition, exaggerated self-confidence and stylistic mistakes, I wrote a text based on an episode of one of my favorite childhood cartoons, Doug Funny, which I saw it at that time, I think on TV Cultura and, if I had already seen it before, there wasn't even a trace of memory left or it seemed to be new to me. In this episode, the students in Doug's classroom, including himself, of course, take an IQ test and when the results of the exam are released, the protagonist of the cartoon is disappointed with his score, having scored in the average, and is impressed by his best friend, Skeeter's score, which he achieved at the gifted level. He is impressed, but more in the sense of astonishment, because he never imagined that his friendly but ''stupidly'' friend could be so much more intelligent than him, a precocious writer. Because in the "old" text, I criticized the exaggerated example of a "moral lesson" that was used in the episode that sought to teach that appearances can be deceiving. I criticized the one-sided emphasis on IQ test scores to recognize and determine human intelligence, including genius, adopted in the episode and emphasized in a moment of Doug's imagination of his friend behaving like a "mad scientist." And I concluded that the most important thing is not what intelligence tests say, but how it is expressed in the real world. So by that criteria, Doug's maturity and literary talent are more impressive than his friend's "genius level" score. However, as it is a cartoon primarily for children and pre-teens, there was no need to develop the themes covered in the episode. For example, it was not discussed or shown whether Doug scored average on all tests, but high on subtests relevant to his writing talent, such as vocabulary and word association (the most logical), and that, even using just IQ tests as a parameter of intelligence would make the proposed moral lesson less simplistic and deterministic. But even if they were true examples and, in fact, I totally believe that such cases exist, they only show, already by a work of fiction, that IQ tests are not perfect in estimating human abilities, if there are many false positives, of Skeeters, good for getting high grades in school tests, entrance exams or public exams, but in more purely intellectual terms, are as common or unimpressive as most people, and other cases with the opposite profile, from Dougs, who show performance excellence in their interests without necessarily having the support of intelligence tests, tests, if they are already demonstrating their capabilities in practices that are more objective and literal than suggestive.

Mais um exemplo de correlação (negativa) entre QI e racionalidade/Another example of a (negative) correlation between IQ and rationality

 Por que parece que uma parte considerável de pessoas "de" QI acima da média se declaram de esquerda, política e ideologicamente?? E o que isso implica à racionalidade?? 

Obter uma alta pontuação em testes cognitivos, a priori, significa apenas isso. Significa que soube ser mais rápido e preciso na resolução das questões propostas, o que é não muito diferente de conseguir encaixar um cubo mágico com rapidez e precisão. E que também não é lá muito diferente do que tirar notas altas no colégio ou vencer disputas de xadrez, se são todos exemplos do uso da inteligência para uma certa finalidade, às vezes mais específica, outras vezes mais generalista. Ainda assim, nenhum deles é uma prova cabal de se ser ou estar mais racional, no sentido de sensato, prioritário aos fatos, às evidências ou à verdade objetiva, isto é, quanto a um, se não o aspecto mais importante da inteligência humana. Na verdade, existem vários estudos que não têm encontrado sequer uma correlação positiva entre os dois. Pois, a partir dos padrões de comportamento relativamente comuns, observados em indivíduos "de alto QI", é possível concluir que, o mais provável é haver uma correlação fraca à negativa. Uma boa demonstração disso, do quão pouco correlativos altas pontuações em testes cognitivos e alta capacidade racional devem estar, é pela quantidade de pessoas "de alto QI" (por dedução ou resultado) que se apegam a pensamentos, ideias e/ou argumentos que são desviantes dos fatos, contraditórios, falaciosos, potencialmente injustos... Particularmente aquelas que se tornam defensoras inflexíveis a ideias e pensamentos ditos "de esquerda", mesmo os desvarios mais óbvios, só por serem originários dos seus pares ideológicos. Desvarios óbvios que, diga-se de passagem, compõem uma parte importante das bases das crenças "esquerdistas", tal como e especialmente a negação do papel da biologia no desenvolvimento e comportamento humanos e em suas diferenças. Então, não parece difícil entender porque é improvável haver uma forte correlação entre QI e racionalidade, se os testes, além de serem testes e não exatamente evidências definitivas de inteligência, não avaliam a racionalidade, nem mesmo os "testes de racionalidade" que já foram inventados, se a melhor maneira de avaliá-la é pela qualidade do sistema individual de crenças, do quão firmado em fatos ou evidências e em argumentos ponderados está, por ser mais abrangente do que uma avaliação com base em como nos comportamos em situações hipotéticas e específicas. Portanto, não é possível que pontuações em testes de QI possam refletir níveis de capacidade racional, ainda mais de indivíduos que pontuam alto neles, mas acreditam com profunda convicção que, por exemplo, as raças humanas e as diferenças entre os sexos são apenas construções sociais (basicamente negando o que os sentidos podem perceber, por conformidade ideológica). Ainda vale dizer que, essa aparente correlação entre fanatismo político e QI, não se limita apenas aos que se declaram "de esquerda" ou "progressistas", apesar de parecer que se manifesta de maneira mais dogmática nesse grupo em particular, também por ser firmarem menos no "senso comum", ou no "bom senso" (pensamento lógico-racional) do que seus antagonistas, "direitistas conservadores", se suas crenças tendem a exigir doses extras de auto convencimento do que simplesmente se convencerem pela percepção de fatos (não significa que tudo o que defendem esteja equivocado, intelectual e moralmente, mas isso é verdadeiro para um bocado do que acreditam). 

Another example of a (negative) correlation between IQ and rationality

Why does it seem that a considerable proportion of people "with" above-average IQs declare themselves to be on the left, politically and ideologically? And what does this imply for rationality?

Getting a high score on cognitive tests, a priori, means just that. It means that I knew how to be faster and more precise in solving the proposed questions, which is not very different from being able to solve a Rubik's cube quickly and accurately. And it's also not much different than getting high grades in school or winning chess matches, if they are all examples of using intelligence for a certain purpose, sometimes more specific, other times more general. Still, none of them is complete proof of being/becoming more rational, in the sense of sensible, prioritizing facts, evidence or objective truth, that is, regarding one, if not the most important aspect of human intelligence. In fact, there are several studies that have not found even a positive correlation between the two. Because, based on the relatively common behavior patterns observed in "high IQ" individuals, it is possible to conclude that there is most likely a weak to negative correlation. A good demonstration of this, of how little correlation high scores on cognitive tests and high rational capacity may be, is by the number of "high IQ" people (by deduction or result) who cling to thoughts, ideas and/or arguments that are deviant from the facts, contradictory, fallacious, potentially unfair... Particularly those who become inflexible defenders of so-called "left-wing" ideas and thoughts, even the most obvious nonsense, just because they originate from their ideological peers. Obvious nonsense that, by the way, makes up an important part of the bases of "leftist" beliefs, such as and especially the denial of the role of biology in human development and behavior and their differences. So, it doesn't seem difficult to understand why there is unlikely to be a strong correlation between IQ and rationality, if the tests, in addition to being tests and not exactly definitive evidence of intelligence, do not assess rationality, not even the "rationality tests" that have already been invented, if the best way to evaluate it is by the quality of the individual belief system, how based on facts or evidence and on thoughtful arguments it is, as it is more comprehensive than an evaluation based on how we behave in hypothetical and specific situations. Therefore, it is not possible that scores on IQ tests can reflect levels of rational capacity, even more so of individuals who score high on them, but believe with deep conviction that, for example, human races and differences between the sexes are just social constructs (basically denying what the senses can perceive, due to ideological conformity). It is also worth saying that this apparent correlation between political fanaticism and IQ is not limited only to those who declare themselves "left-wing" or "progressive", although it seems to manifest in a more dogmatic way in this particular group, also because they are less firm in "common sense", or in "good sense" (logical-rational thinking) than their antagonists, "conservative right-wingers", if their beliefs tend to require extra doses of self-convincing than simply being convinced by the perception of facts ( does not mean that everything they defend is wrong, intellectually and morally, but that is true for a lot of what they believe).

Another handful of modern heresies

1. For those who say they are "totally against eugenics", are they in favor of dysgenics?

If it is against the healthiest, most intelligent and/or sensible becoming the majority of a population, then is it for or indifferent if the opposite pattern happens?

2. From the food we eat, the neighborhood we live in or would like to live in, the people we live with, etc., etc., we are always trying to select what we consider to be best for us. Therefore, a good part of our choices could be considered, in a certain way, as "intentionally eugenic".

Even those who delude themselves into thinking that human beings are extremely moldable by their environment also seek to select people in their lives based on what they consider to be the best. Their biggest difference in relation to those who are not deluded about this is that they believe in an unlimited power of social engineering, of improving people through social interventions, a thought that is, in a certain way, "eugenic", instead of giving themselves defeated, accepting that differences in behavior and intelligence are more intrinsic and can only be "resolved" with the application of some legitimately eugenic mechanism of reproductive selection.

3. "The university has always been an environment of free thought and scrutiny of current common sense"

Reality: it was never literal or exactly like that... Quite the contrary, as it has also been the place where tyrannies of thought have been fostered, transmitted and imposed...

4. "Eugenics is unethical because it violates individual rights"

In fact, individualism, like collectivism, is extremist and radical and not sensible or considered, as many think, precisely because it gives total decision-making power to the individual, while the most balanced thing is that this power is shared and that this distribution is rationally mediated by context.

4.1 All extremism starts from the imposition of practically absolute rules, without exception

This is the case with individualism.

4.2 This individualist ideology seems to preach a kind of supremacy of the individual

As if their rights were sacred, even when they overlap with collective well-being or even in relation to their own well-being.

4.3 "We must treat people as individuals"

Also...

But we also need to treat each other based on the groups to which we belong or identify, since it is common for us to express, whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, their behavioral tendencies.

There is no need to exclude one approach for another if they are complementary.

4.4 Still on the idea of a one-child policy or a limit of two children for people with proven low cognitive ability (with an average IQ of 90 or less/commented on in the previous list of thought crimes)

... access to sterilization would be facilitated and they could be encouraged with financial rewards, preferably lifelong compensation offered by the state.

5. Pathological lying is like a psychological reaction of escaping from reality, subconsciously preventing the individual from falling into a depressive state, acting as a psychiatric self-treatment of a "homeopathic" nature, in which an illness is treated with supposedly controlled doses of the same evil that causes it, a "little" of madness to avoid greater "madness", which would be depression.

Because ideological fanaticism, including religious fanaticism, would be a contextualized manifestation of pathological lying, of a predominant escape from reality, generated by the dominance of the subconscious over the conscious, that is, of non-homeopathic doses of irrationality.

6. The cultural left has defined itself as the defender of the arts, but...

... low quality or questionable music; doodles, paintings and installations devoid of complexity, realism or beauty; poems without rhythm, meaning or depth...

Defender of the arts, demeaning them???

7. Football fanaticism or "footballism" could be considered a specific and strong symptom of intellectual retardation, especially in men

8. There are those who see horizons but cannot see their own feet (excessive idealists)

And there are those who only see their own feet (excessive pragmatists)

9. The greatest enemy of the most rational is not the anti-intellectual, even if he is one of the most irrational types, but the pseudo-intellectual, precisely by pretending to be him, by disputing or occupying his space of voice and action

10. Much of politics is quackery. A handful of cults or sects posing as serious policies, as evidence-based measures and philosophical pondering

11. About the predator instinct

Why do animals of species X feel a great predatory attraction towards animals of species Y?

Perhaps, because they present constitutive aspects of their bodies and their brains (or nervous systems), products of evolution, which make them specifically and highly reactive to the individuals in question.

sa species, in a sense of predation.

And also because they shared the same ecological niche for a long time, which may have contributed to this specific reaction, just like our variation in taste for food.

12. The left, on average, is well intentioned, but stupid. The right, on average, is ill-intentioned, but smart

"Traditionally", right represents the predator (also the parasite) and left represents the prey. The predator, in nature, is smarter than the prey, which at least recognizes its own oppression

But there are also parasites and predators that are born from prey...

Our greatest tragedy, our heroes are not smarter than our executioners

12.1. The right tends to use honesty as a means to legalize evil. The left tends to use dishonesty to advance primary or seemingly compassion-based policies.

13. Intelligence and behavior are “non-physical” traits

But specific brain constitutions that reflect reactive or behavioral and perceptual or intelligence patterns are also "physical traits."

14. The difference in perception and understanding of objective reality between the most rational and the least is comparable to the difference between a human being and a non-human animal

15. The legitimate fool is not the one who does not know, but the one who does not know that he does not know.

16. About "reparations for African slavery"

"White people need to pay reparations to black people"

So, mixed race people who are "half black and half white" only have to pay half??

Poor white people also have to pay and even rich and middle class black people??

However, much of the blame for the social problems of black Africans and their descendants in the diaspora, such as poverty and crime, lies with "them" (those directly responsible), because, on average, they present intrinsic characteristics of behavior and intelligence that disadvantage them socially, even more so in complex societies. This is not an apology for racism, white supremacy or Nazism. It is just an important part of this reality that many, for ideological reasons, do not want to accept.

And the ideal would not be to "make amends for the supposed legacy of slavery", but to put an end once and for all to exorbitant social inequalities, which don't just affect black people.

16.1. "Racial quota systems are necessary, because they are mechanisms that seek to repair the effects of the 'legacy of slavery' and 'structural racism', factors responsible for the differences between whites and blacks"

Reality: racial quota systems are based on a "good" social pseudoscience, on the false idea of causality between abstract terms, such as 'legacy of slavery' or 'structural racism', and social and other differences between whites and blacks. Because the main factor responsible for these differences are the intrinsic and statistical differences in behavior and intelligence between ethnic-racial groups. In other words, if there is a disproportion of poor black people, it is not because they have supposedly been or continue to be socially excluded, but because the majority of them do not present psychological characteristics (such as prudence) and cognitive characteristics (high cognitive capacity) that favor them in the future. professional and economic sector. This means that, obviously, there are black people with favorable characteristics, as well as white people and other groups lacking them, if we are talking about statistical group variation.

Not that poverty is justified only by the intrinsic characteristics of individuals, because the imposition of low wages and high costs of living, in short, of arbitrary measures that complicate the lives of the working class, also plays an important role in perpetuating extreme social inequalities.

This does not mean that the evaluation and selection system for federal universities and/or public positions is completely meritorious, in the sense of being strictly based on evidence or the best approaches. That is why I have already proposed changes to it, particularly regarding the emphasis on the assessment of general knowledge, directing the focus to knowledge specific to the chosen area. I even believe that, following this change, there would be a natural increase, without the need for quotas, of students from other racial groups at universities and those hired in the public service.

Even so, it is a fallacy to believe that all professional and social fields need to present proportions of racial groups consistent with the national or local demographic composition, or more "balanced", if the most important thing is selection based on merit of ability, which is independent of this .

And as for social and racial differences, the biggest problem is not that there are few black dentists or lawyers or a majority of white dentists and lawyers, but that there are such large social differences, especially among people who are in great need, with income and assets. insufficient, even if they are hardworking and honest, and exaggeratedly well-off people.

17. 3 ways to say the same thing: from the most wrong to the most right

1. "All black people are violent" (explicit and therefore racist generalization)

2. "Black people are more likely to

  violent behaviors" (partial or vague and implicit generalization)

3. "There has been a statistical disproportion of black (men) involved in violent behavior" (emphasis on demographic/cutout, leaving no room for generalizations)

18. About changing the race of fictional characters in films and other artistic works due to ideological motivation

Self-declared progressive: "he's just a fictional character, who doesn't exist. What's the problem with changing his race??"

Me: "so if it's just a fictional character, why change his race??"

Self-declared progressive: "it is important that character Y is from race X and not from Y so that children of race X feel represented or identify themselves"

Me: "but if it's just a fictional character, why worry about his race or that children of race X won't feel represented if the character is of another race??"

Me: "We identify with animals and sea sponges in cartoons. Why think that children of race X wouldn't identify with a fictional character of race Y"??

19. "White lies" can be very cruel

Because if you say that an aesthetically "ugly" person is very beautiful, you can exacerbate their "ugliness" for yourself, for others involved, and for themselves. The ideal is to emphasize what the person stands out for positively and avoid exaggerations or "torn" compliments in relation to what they don't stand out for or what they do, but negatively.