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

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

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

Lógica primária e sua relação com anti e pseudo intelectualismos/Primary logic and its relationship with anti and pseudo intellectualisms

Lógica primária é um termo que inventei e se refere a uma ideia ou pensamento que aparenta ser lógico, no sentido de coerente e factual, em um primeiro olhar, e que pode deixar de fazer sentido a partir de um aprofundamento crítico e analítico.

Um exemplo de lógica primária é o simples raciocínio de que, mais tempo de aula resulta em mais conhecimentos absorvidos pelo estudante, que foi a base para a decisão do governo brasileiro de aumentar o tempo de aula nas escolas públicas, isto é, para um modelo mais "integral". É uma lógica primária por também se basear em uma correlação entre o predomínio de escolas em tempo integral e o nível de desenvolvimento socioeconômico de um país. No entanto, existem outros fatores que, não apenas contribuem, mas também são mais relevantes para o desenvolvimento de um país, especialmente aqueles aos quais temos menor poder de controle, como as capacidades cognitivas médias da população, que não são reflexos exclusivos da educação "recebida" (ou alcançada), se, na verdade, é a própria educação que reflete, não de maneira absoluta, nossas inteligências. Essa é uma lógica primária baseada em uma crença de causalidade entre nível educacional e socioeconômico, como se apenas uma "educação de qualidade" que contribuísse para o desenvolvimento de um país, desprezando o fator cognitivo, mais intrínseco ou menos sensível à intervenções sociais. 

Anti e pseudo intelectualismos

A negação explícita (anti) ou implícita (pseudo) da razão ou do pensamento lógico-racional, que geralmente se manifesta, respectivamente, pela religião e por ideologias políticas, tende a ter como característica principal, se aplicando o conceito de lógica primária, justamente um predomínio da mesma na construção de suas bases de argumentos, de afirmações aparentemente lógicas ou que fazem sentido, que são primariamente coerentes, mas que deixam de fazer ou ser a partir de uma análise crítica mais profunda. 

Exemplos: a lógica primária de que, como toda criação tem um criador, então, o universo, que supostamente seria uma "criação", tem que ter um deus "criador";

A lógica primária de que nossa condição humana também nos faz iguais em nossas capacidades cognitivas e são as diferenças do meio em que nascemos e vivemos que, unicamente, nos diferenciam nesse aspecto, tal como as desigualdades socioeconômicas ou de acesso a uma "educação de qualidade".

Além desse termo, outro, que propus em um texto recente, semanticalismo, que se refere a uma ênfase ou importância excessiva na palavra do que no elemento ou fenômeno que simboliza, também está presente em sistemas de crenças ou ideologias baseados em um predomínio de pensamentos ou ideias que poderiam ser classificados como lógicas primárias. O próprio caso das religiões monoteístas e a crença na existência de um único Deus criador do universo, em que a palavra Deus é considerada uma realidade por si mesma, mesmo se está associada a uma crença de existência sem qualquer rastro de evidências de que exista, puramente baseada na lógica primária de que toda "criação" tem que ter um "criador" (as próprias palavras "criação" e "criador" também têm um peso desproporcional aí e até podem ser consideradas inapropriadas nesse contexto, se o ideal seria denominá-las, respectivamente, de causa e efeito).

 Primary logic and its relationship with anti and pseudo intellectualisms

Primary logic is a term I invented and refers to an idea or thought that appears to be logical, in the sense of coherent and factual, at first glance, and that may no longer make sense upon critical and analytical deepening.

An example of primary logic is the simple reasoning that more class time results in more knowledge absorbed by the student, which was the basis for the Brazilian government's decision to increase class time in public schools, that is, for a more ''integral'' model. It is a primary logic because it is also based on a correlation between the predominance of full-time schools and the level of socioeconomic development of a country. However, there are other factors that not only contribute, but are also more relevant to the development of a country, especially those over which we have less power to control, such as the average cognitive abilities of the population, which are not exclusive reflections of education " received" (or achieved), if, in fact, it is education itself that reflects, not in an absolute way, our intelligence. This is a primary logic based on a belief in causality between educational and socioeconomic level, as if only a "quality education" contributed to the development of a country, disregarding the cognitive factor, which is more intrinsic or less sensitive to social interventions.

Anti and pseudo intellectualism

The explicit (anti) or implicit (pseudo) denial of reason or logical-rational thought, which is generally manifested, respectively, by religion and political ideologies, tends to have as its main characteristic, applying the concept of primary logic, precisely a predominance of it in the construction of its bases of arguments, of statements that are apparently logical or that make sense, that are primarily coherent, but that fail to do or be based on a deeper critical analysis.

Examples: the primary logic that, as every creation has a creator, then the universe, which is supposed to be a "creation", must have a "creator";

The primary logic is that our human condition also makes us equal in our cognitive capabilities and it is the differences in the environment in which we are born and live that, uniquely, differentiate us in this aspect, such as socioeconomic inequalities or access to a "quality education ".

In addition to this term, another, which I proposed in a recent text, semanticalism, which refers to an excessive emphasis or importance on the word than on the element or phenomenon it symbolizes, is also present in belief systems or ideologies based on a predominance of thoughts or ideas that could be classified as primary logic. The very case of monotheistic religions and the belief in the existence of a single God who created the universe, in which the word God is considered a reality in itself, even if it is associated with a belief in existence without any trace of evidence that it exists, purely based on the primary logic that every "creation" must have a "creator" (the words "creation" and "creator" themselves also have a disproportionate weight there and can even be considered inappropriate in this context, if the ideal would be called them, respectively, of cause and effect).

About a political-cinematic dichotomy: Blanche (left) versus Stanley (right) and with many "spoilers"

 

Text originally published on January 22, 2016 on an old blog and whose main idea I will comment on again here...

Blanche DuBois is the main character in the novel, which was also made into a film, A Streetcar Named Desire, by Tennesse Williams. She is Stella's older sister who is married to Stanley Kowalski, a working-class couple living in New Orleans. Blanche appears to be a fine, educated and somewhat affected woman, in short, a high society lady. The complete opposite of Stanley, a gluttonous, very masculine type, full of muscles, testosterone and rudeness, typical of the lower classes. Stella is the most balanced character in the plot, a typical housewife, young, sensitive, worried about her sister who moved in with her and emotionally dependent on her husband, Stanley. Gradually, the relationship between the three deteriorates, reaching the breaking point, when Blanche's lies are discovered by him and Stella, pregnant, decides to move away from them both, even more so after her sister's admission to a clinic and because she doesn't endure more physical and psychological abuse from Stanley.

Clinically speaking, Blanche represents a case of pathological lying, a psychiatric condition in which the sufferer has an uncontrollable need to lie, to the point of believing their own fantasies. But she is not the only one in this novel who can be diagnosed with a mental disorder, because Stanley also fits, particularly the anti-social personality, because of his very insensitive and sadistic way of being.

So, some time ago, I had the idea of associating these characters and their relationships, in a metaphorical way, with the political-ideological spectrum in force in the Western world, in which Blanche would represent certain types or traits common to the Left, such as an attachment to idealistic fantasies (or unrealisms); Stella would represent the Center, more silent and supporting, even more so in times of ideological polarization, and Stanley would represent certain traits or types of the Extreme Right, excessively sincere and insensitive, to the point of sadism. The first is more feminine, artistically and intellectually inclined, sensitive and more likely to lie to avoid offending, especially towards certain groups and also about herself. And the last, its opposite, more masculine, focused on the physical world rather than the mental one and more prone to offending in order not to lie (or tell the truth about what they think and feel), also due to the simple lack of commitment of not being respectful to others, even more so with those they consider inferior.

The pseudo and the anti-intellectual

Blanche DuBois, as with the left, pretends to be what she is not. She, like a high society lady. The left, as the absolute holder of wisdom and reason. Both, therefore, would fall into a category of anti-intellectualism, of denial of reality, but intending not to do so. Stanley Kowalski, as with the right, makes a point of being faithful to his own authenticity, although or therefore closed to reflections and criticism. In a way, they also end up denying facts that do not corroborate or confirm their self-images. Hence, they would express an anti-intellectualism, of suspending critical thinking in favor of their emotions or instincts.

It is worth remembering that pseudo intellectualism is basically anti-intellectualism, only disguised as sophistry.

In conclusion, both deny realities that do not align with their worldviews. But, while the first, Blanche and the left, pretend to be or think they are what they are not (very insufficiently), Stanley and the right insist on being what they are and only that, disregarding any deviation, regardless of its quality or constructive potential. . Stella would be the third way, although, as with the center on the political-ideological spectrum, she, during the plot, tends to be too tolerant of her husband and sister.

More sinful thoughts

  Cruelty is generally a combination of cowardice and injustice

There are two types of cowards, the one who always runs away from situations and the one who always confronts with violence those who are less strong than him or does so dishonestly, for example, in a gang.

However, it is the first type that tends to be most morally condemned

The other would be the most conceptually cowardly, if prudence is relative to personal and circumstantial contexts and, therefore, is not always synonymous with cowardice, while acting violently towards those who are weaker or doing so in groups against only a person is always a coward

That "tramp" who doesn't work is still not directly exploited by "capitalist society", more or less like a thief who robs a thief

The most rational opinion is often the most unpopular

Rationality is more like an ability to control oneself over one's will or the need to interpret facts according to one's own feelings, that is, control over one's own self-projection.

The most direct way to analyze an individual's intelligence is to find out how rational they are. The application of a battery of cognitive tests is a much more indirect way, because, while everyone who is highly rational is very intelligent, in rational terms, there is a greater diversity of intellectual performance in the real world in terms of those who score higher on IQ tests.

The highly rational individual is also the most self-aware and therefore the most realistic, the one who least filters objective reality

Right-wing contradictions

1.

"'Bullying' reinforces character"

Same person, outraged

"Look at that white person being beaten by a black man for no apparent reason"

two.

"I never said capitalism is perfect"

Same person

Generally incapable of criticizing capitalism, of perceiving its inconsistencies

"No matter the era, nostalgia is always the same subjective feeling that the past was better than the current present"

Not really, not least because of the great irregularities that have characterized the flow of human history. For example, a person who lived his youth fully in the 20s of the 20th century, especially if it was in the USA or Western Europe, and saw the crisis of 29 and the rise of Nazifascism, certainly had more reason to feel nostalgic about that time than someone who lived her entire life without experiencing major social turmoil. Just like today, in the year 2024 in which I write this thought, older generations and even young people who were born in the last two decades of the 20th century, have more logical reasons to regret the present, much more turbulent time, than who lived their entire life without experiencing any civilizational decline

The most self-aware are the most consciously contradictory

An extreme intolerance to differences of opinion may be because you think you are more right about everything you care/interest about or because you really are

Tip: most of the time it is the guess of the first option

It may also reflect a great (undeclared) insecurity about one's own opinion or the level of understanding one has about it and associated with a desire to preserve it at all costs.

One of the most typical expressions of irrationality is ethnocentrism or extreme and/or uncritical nationalism, another classic manifestation of anti-intellectualism, of suspension of logical-rational thinking in favor of ideological indoctrination.

Ex-atheists exist, just like ex-religious people. But there are also individual variations of disbelief and religious belief, and it is possible to wonder if the majority of ex-atheists were not among the most convinced and the same logic for ex-religious people, that they were not among the most religious or believers. I have already commented that those who come to identify as atheists or agnostics mainly for moral/emotional motivation are more likely to return to religion than those who do so for intellectual motivation. For in relation to religious people, I believe the pattern is the opposite, if the level of intensity of religious conviction is mediated by the emotive illogic of faith-based belief, which is only fully possible through the suspension of logical thought.

Those who cry out most for social justice also tend to be the most culturally or socially maladjusted, who also tend to be more genetically mutant than the most adjusted. This is also why they tend to adopt excessively unrealistic ideologies, paradoxically based on their own personal realism of misfit, the historical realism of normalized injustices, but also the unrealism of wanting to alter reality and then societies to reflect their minoritary natures and /or more dysfunctional

Controversial logic

Money dominates the world. "Jews' dominates the money. Jews dominate the world (??)

Most human beings are socially conformists, as they appear to have evolved, like nominal individuals of all social species, such as ants, to obey a superior hierarchical command and contribute to the community in which they reside according to their physical-behavioral characteristics. Because, basically, every human social organization functions as an organism and the individuals that constitute it as cells of its internal systems. So, it is possible to say that there are specialized types, that some types are more like white cells, that detect invaders from outside the organism (groups of potentially problematic immigrants??) as well as "sick" or "defective" cells, and others that are like red blood cells (which help repair damage to the body).

I still think that political extremes can be metaphorically associated with pathological states. For example, the extreme right, when in power, can act like an autoimmune disease, which attacks the body itself, based on a disproportionate defense to healthy cells, in addition to the increased risk of attacking other organisms. Now the left in power can also act as a disease that weakens the immune system, such as AIDS, causing less healthy cells and invasive elements to multiply...

In terms of types, some human beings would be more like brain cells, such as neurons, others more like specialized cells of other systems, such as the digestive and excretory systems. And, to represent the most rational and most naturally non-conformist to dysfunctional contexts or those that fall short of a fully balanced social organization, I think of neurons located in areas specialized in self-awareness, self-knowledge, objective perception of the world and mirror genes, related to empathy

With mass immigration, dysgenics, hegemony of ideologies that deny intrinsic differences in intellect and behavior, and anti-meritocracy, stupid "progressives" are making the possibility of using eugenic practices not only viable but necessary.

In fact, they are also justifying the possibility of the return of right-wing dictatorships in the West

For, perhaps, most people, generalist or collectivist discourses are much easier to internalize than discourses with more nuances, details and perspectives because they may even contradict each other, apparently, but they do not support Manichaean narratives.

Natural selection is more about maximizing survival than fertility, if the former is its ultimate goal and the latter is a means. But generally fertility is equivalent to the survival of a species at a collective level, means and ends indistinguishable.

What every self-declared left-wing progressive should learn

That no one is forced to like anything

No one is forced to like what they like

No one is obliged to tolerate the presence of another if it is not by mutual consent and if they have the power to choose

Finally, learn the basics of socializing

A relativist person: art, like personal taste, is relative and subjective.

A "left-wing" and relativist person: "art, like personal taste, is relative and subjective, but... (I think) that film is (objectively) excellent..." "I don't understand why there is people who can't like this or that film..."

A relativist is identical to an absolutist. Both reduce the complexity of cultural contexts to all or nothing

Academics versus scientists

Not every scientist is an academic. Not every academic is a scientist

An academic is someone who, a priori, works within a university, usually as a professor

A scientist is someone who ideally dedicates himself to science, to the systematization of logical-rational thinking in theory and practice, generally within a university. But you can also do it outside, by yourself

In fact, there are many academics who, in addition to not being a legitimate scientist, behave like a legitimate pseudoscientist

The greater the demographic profile, the fewer the number of good people

Good people exist more as individuals than as groups

A structural and basic definition for mental disorder is a stable instability, which is the opposite of but still the same as life itself, which expresses itself as an unstable stability

One of the greatest social injustices is the difference in access to financial stability between individuals from different social classes, caused mainly by the difference in family support, for example, the payment of private university tuition, in contrast to the absence and effectiveness of this same aid due to of the characteristic and intergenerational penury of many of the less privileged classes.

But, with the class struggle being robbed of protagonism by that of identities within the hierarchy of priorities of the so-called left, the focus on structural classism was diverted to structural racism, supposedly intact and more important...

The typical progressive believes that abstractions,such as "society" or "structural racism", directly influence people's behavior, that is, it reverses the order of factors in which, here, it makes a lot of difference, if it is the same as putting the cart before the horse, after all, People behave primarily according to their psychological and cognitive tendencies. Yes, context influences. Yes, but the context does not determine

I have already commented that morality is not only human, as it also has a universal nature, as a synonym for indispensability based on the adaptive and evolutionary contexts of individuals of a species. But morality is also a human fiction, as it is an abstract word, if the word itself is already,an abstraction, an individualized symbolization of elements, phenomena, derivations and fictions...

There has never been a need to replace old musical styles with new ones. One of the reasons for this replacement and consequent loss of cultural wealth has been economic transformations, even more so from the hegemony of capitalism, a system based on profit or the short term.

Brazilian popular culture was completely obliterated by capitalist popular culture

Being bisexual is not like being ambidextrous, equally left-handed and right-handed, but like being ambiverted, extroverted and introverted, more dependent on context and more fluid in its expression.

The immaturity of the past was to believe that there was an all-powerful father watching over all human beings

The immaturity of the present is to believe that there are no limits or duties, only potentials and rights

To be quite frank, and coming from a homo(bi)sexual, homosexuality is a hormonal disorder, but a mild one, not necessarily a disease. And this is also why human society should tolerate it, to a certain extent, encouraging healthy behaviors and this does not include promiscuity, also because of the intrinsic imperfection of life.

About the "pseudosciences of good", "leftist", and the most serious

 Pseudosciences are scientifically unproven theories and techniques, with remote to zero potential for proof and which aim to pass themselves off as science. Homeopathy, astrology, Freudian theory, the anti-vaccine movement and flat earthism are examples of pseudosciences. Pseudoscience is a common type of pseudo-intellectualism, that is, a false philosophy, a supposed love for wisdom or knowledge, but which, in fact, expresses itself as its falsification.

An example of pseudo-intellectualism, relevant to this text, which is also expressed as pseudoscience is that of radical egalitarianism.

Although individuals from across the political-ideological spectrum adopt pseudosciences or "pseudo-intellectualisms" as primary references for interpreting reality, these types of intellectual deviations seem to have been adopted more frequently by those who declare themselves "on the left".

Finally, there is a third deviation from wisdom, anti-intellectualism, in which, instead of passing itself off as knowledge, it denies it by appealing, generally explicitly, to the emotional, instinctive and subjective. A classic example of anti-intellectualism is religion, especially religious fundamentalism. The latter is adopted more frequently by individuals who declare themselves "right-wing".

Religion, as it has historically developed and constituted, can also be considered a false philosophy.

The difference between anti-intellectualism and pseudo-intellectualism is the same between a religious priest and a priest posing as a scientific authority.

So, despite the unprecedented advances in science/technology in recent centuries, pseudosciences continue to perpetuate themselves through the constant renewal of followers, also because the majority of human beings are more irrational than rational.

And, if thanks to relative secularization, primarily in Western societies, anti-intellectualism, particularly religion, has diminished its cultural influence, it seems that it has only been to replace it with pseudo-intellectualism within the main institutions, as in education, in the media and even in governments, passing off as knowledge and/or legitimate rational/philosophical judgments, being adopted as references for public policies and, from this, causing even more (serious) problems than solving existing ones.

I like to call these pseudosciences that are more ideologically aligned with the "left" "pseudosciences of good" because, in addition to behaving illegitimately like sciences and/or philosophy, they are also based on the prioritization of morality or moral discernment, than if considers as right or wrong, above rationality or intellectual discernment, of what is perceived as true or false, clearly an inversion of the "golden" order of wisdom in which, first, facts or evidence are prioritized and, then, judgment (moral) of how to act based on them. This is the same order of justice in its most appropriate practice, of impartial and objective thinking in search of truth, because the most fair is also what is most true or factual.

An example of the very negative impact of these "good" pseudosciences deeply infiltrated in the most important institutions in Western countries has been the imposition of a policy favorable to mass immigration and "multiculturalism" because it has altered the ethnic-racial composition of these countries, in addition also cause a large increase in crime and cultural conflicts. This policy has been based on the following assumptions*: the belief that the environment has a more determining influence on human beings than biology, informally called the "blank slate"; that human races do not exist and/or that their differences in behavior and intelligence are absolute reflections of their cultures and not also or mainly of their biology, that is, that they are only superficial; the same denialism also applied to differences between the sexes; and the adoption of anti-racist fallacies, particularly the narrative of "white guilt" as the dominant moral code, in which only white people of European origin who, in general, should be held morally responsible for the social and historical ills of other ethnic-racial groups, especially black people of African origin, which consists of a highly biased or distorted interpretation of historical facts and with implications that are opposed to true social justice, by placing all the blame on a vaguely defined group category and which, in fact, is of a "scapegoat", for not being the group most directly responsible for human ills throughout our history, the political-economic "elites".