Sobre evolução cognitiva, espécie humana e ateísmo/On cognitive evolution, the human species and atheism

 Se considerarmos como marcos evolutivos as diferenças entre as espécies, quanto à capacidade de compreensão da realidade, diga-se quanto ao que é mais essencial à inteligência, a percepção, então, a percepção humana, que consegue ir muito além de uma perspectiva primária de adaptação e sobrevivência, por exemplo, prestando atenção ou tendo curiosidade sobre tópicos, a priori, não-essenciais, tal como as estrelas no céu, pode ser considerada um grande marco na escala evolutiva da cognição, e isso é particularmente verdadeiro para certas perspectivas, como a realidade da finitude, sobre "tudo" que existe, incluindo a vida, se se trata de perceber algo que parece impossível de ser notado e, especialmente, compreendido por outras espécies e que também apresenta uma importância suprema, justamente nesse sentido, de compreensão de mundo, da própria existência... 

Consequentemente, o ateísmo pode ser considerado uma expressão particular desta evolução cognitiva, de expansão do escopo perceptivo para muito além de uma perspectiva imediata ou limitada à adaptação e sobrevivência. Até porque, se, de acordo com o que tenho pensado e escrito sobre esse tópico, parece que existe uma relação intrínseca entre as crenças humanas que se baseiam em pensamento mágico, principalmente a crença religiosa, e o modus operandi de percepção de todas as outras espécies não-humanas, que eu denominei de autocentrismo, se se consiste em um nível muito básico de percepção de mundo, em que o ser vivo o percebe de maneira muito centrada em si mesmo, em suas próprias impressões (instintivas, emotivas...), ou de maneira definitivamente menos objetiva ou "impessoal". 

No entanto, essa superioridade cognitivo-evolutiva seria apenas específica ao ateísmo em si e não necessariamente a todos os ateus, se existem muitos que apresentam outros tipos, mais discretos ou não, de crenças baseadas em pensamento mágico. Pois essa superioridade é mais provável de ser plenamente verdadeira, pelo menos com base nessa linha de pensamento que tracei, para os ateus mais racionais e que também são os seres humanos mais racionais, por serem os mais realistas, que conseguem construir sistemas de crenças predominantemente baseados em evidências (fatos ou verdades objetivas) e ponderação analítica. Seria tal como comparar a evolução gradual de uma capacidade ao longo de uma linha evolutiva, desde se movimentar até a andar ereto ou voar, por exemplo. Então, teríamos, desde as formas de vida mais primitivas, dotadas de um nível muito primário de alcance perceptivo, até nós (e especialmente os mais racionais ou realistas), que podemos pensar e aprender sobre fatos ou verdades que estão muito além das nossas perspectivas mais primárias e imediatas de sobrevivência e adaptação, incluindo os mais derradeiros, como a igualdade da vida por sua essência e finitude. 

If we consider as evolutionary milestones the differences between species, in terms of the capacity to understand reality, that is, in terms of what is most essential to intelligence, perception, then human perception, which can go far beyond a primary perspective of adaptation and survival, for example, paying attention or being curious about topics that are, a priori, non-essential, such as the stars in the sky, can be considered a major milestone in the evolutionary scale of cognition, and this is particularly true for certain perspectives, such as the reality of finitude, about "everything" that exists, including life, if it is a matter of perceiving something that seems impossible to be noticed and, especially, understood by other species and that also presents a supreme importance, precisely in this sense, of understanding the world, of existence itself...

Consequently, atheism can be considered a particular expression of this cognitive evolution, of expanding the perceptive scope far beyond an immediate or limited perspective of adaptation and survival. Even because, according to what I have thought and written about this topic, it seems that there is an intrinsic relationship between human beliefs that are based on magical thinking, especially religious belief, and the modus operandi of perception of all other non-human species, which I have called self-centrism, if it consists of a very basic level of perception of the world, in which the living being perceives it in a very self-centered way, in its own impressions (instinctive, emotional...), or in a definitely less objective or "impersonal" way.

However, this cognitive-evolutionary superiority would only be specific to atheism itself and not necessarily to all atheists, if there are many who present other types, more discreet or not, of beliefs based on magical thinking. For this superiority is more likely to be fully true, at least based on this line of thought that I have outlined, for the most rational atheists, who are also the most rational human beings, because they are the most realistic, who can build belief systems predominantly based on evidence (facts or objective truths) and analytical consideration. It would be like comparing the gradual evolution of a capacity along an evolutionary line, from moving to walking upright or flying, for example. Then, we would have, from the most primitive life forms, endowed with a very primary level of perceptive range, to us (and especially the most rational or realistic ones), who can think and learn about facts or truths that are far beyond our most primary and immediate perspectives of survival and adaptation, including the most ultimate ones, such as the equality of life by its essence and finitude.

Speculation about the geographic, ethnic/racial, sexual distribution... of the human types defined by the author of "The Fundamental Laws of Human Stupidity"

 Carlo Cipolla, an Italian economist who wrote this book and who I have already commented on and criticized in some of my texts. In this text, I will speculate on how these types or phenotypes/archetypes are distributed...

First, let's look at them:

The intelligent: whose actions benefit themselves and others

The bandit: whose actions benefit themselves at the expense of others

The naive: whose actions benefit others at their expense

And the stupid: whose actions harm themselves and others

I have already written a text criticizing these laws and what he wrote about them. For example, I criticized the restricted definition of the stupid type, as if the naive and the bandit could not also be considered as categories of stupid. Although I consider my criticism valid, it is not important to emphasize this point here, since it will be based on the definitions proposed by Cipolla that I will work on my speculation about their distribution among human groups.

Cipolla also wrote about what happens (obviously) in a society when there is a growing predominance of stupid people, in his fifth fundamental law of human stupidity. I include a relevant excerpt from this text to illustrate his specific thoughts on this topic, below:

Fifth law

5. The stupid person is the most dangerous person there is.

''And its corollary:

A stupid person is more dangerous than a criminal.

We can't do anything about the stupid. The difference between societies that collapse under the weight of their stupid citizens and those that transcend them is the composition of the non-stupid. Those that progress despite their stupid people have a high proportion of people acting intelligently, those who offset the losses of the stupid by bringing gains to themselves and their fellow men.

Declining societies have the same percentage of stupid people as intelligent ones. But they also have high percentages of defenseless people and, Cipolla writes, “an alarming proliferation of bandits with connotations of stupidity.”

“This change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the [stupid] fraction and makes decline a certainty,” Cipolla concludes. “And the country goes to hell.”

(I also criticized what he pointed out in this excerpt, in this text: “Critically analyzing the 5 laws of human stupidity”).

Speculative proposal on the distribution of types or categories of people defined by Carlos Cipolla

Intelligent, naive, criminal/bandit and stupid

* These types seem to be summarized definitions of compositions of personality traits and intelligence in which one of the characteristics tends to stand out more, for example, naivety.

* Between the intelligent and the stupid, the naive and the criminal/bandit can also be considered mixed types that combine traits of these phenotypes that would be more regular, precisely the first ones mentioned.

In ascending order, from the most common types to the most unusual, based on the current context, the year 2024, and considering the individual and social perspectives.

It is worth mentioning that I will not take any further risks, speculating percentages of how these types would be distributed and that therefore, even the least common type for a given population, according to my speculation, is not explicitly stated to be much less common than the others. 

By geographic distribution:

Americas:

North America

USA: naive, intelligent/criminal/stupid

Canada: naive, intelligent, stupid/criminal

Mexico and Central America: naive/criminal/stupid, intelligent

Brazil and South America (excluding Argentina and Uruguay): naive/criminal/stupid, intelligent

Argentina and Uruguay: naive, criminal/stupid/intelligent

Haiti(?): criminal/stupid, naive, intelligent

Comment: a constant in many countries is the possible predominance of the "naive" type, whose actions benefit others at their expense, mainly due to the social context, since there is no country that is not socially structured in a way that produces a hierarchical pyramid of parasitism of the upper classes, at the top, in relation to the other classes, differing only in the how unequally and explicitly this parasitism is expressed, less significant, but existing, in first world "social democracies", such as the Scandinavian countries, and more significant in underdeveloped countries.

In the case of the Americas, I perceive a great difference in this distribution of human types proposed by Cipolla, in which the only two first world American countries, and which are not Caribbean tax havens, Canada and the USA, would present a less problematic distribution, even with differences between them: the first more similar to a European country, and the USA in a more singular distributive situation, due to its own internal and idiosyncratic diversity, resulting from its superlative dimensions of territory and demographics, as well as its unparallel history. My speculation also highlights something that, for many, especially Latin Americans, is considered an inconvenient truth, that it is their/our own people who, on average, contribute to keeping their/our countries in a state of underdevelopment, not only the historical guilt of the European colonizer or their political and economic "elites", if these also tend to express a lack of common character in the populations of these countries, of being representative of them. Hence the greater proportion of the "bandit"/criminal type.

I highlighted Haiti, because it is the poorest country in the Americas: half of the island of Hispaniola, marked by a history of civil wars, bloody dictatorships and predominant poverty. For a country as chaotic and precarious as this one, is it by chance the product only of its troubled history or also of its own population? (Except for its "intelligent" fraction, which definitely does not seem to consist of a majority). Furthermore, its status as a social and political pariah state, which has been going on for many decades, may also be contributing to empowering the most selfish types of its population, very abundant in its spaces of power and typical of dictatorships or authoritarian states. In any case, it is also possible to speculate whether this type is more common in this country than in others (something more intrinsic) and whether this factor would be an important part of explaining its very problematic situation. 

Europe:

Eastern Europe: naive, criminal, intelligent, stupid

(Countries like Slovenia and Estonia would do better, at least according to their socioeconomic indicators)

Western Europe: naive, intelligent/criminal, stupid

Northern Europe (Scandinavia): naive, intelligent, stupid/criminal

Southern Europe: naive/criminal, intelligent, stupid

Comment: Stereotypes being confirmed??

Are Southern and Eastern Europeans, on average, more corruptible and, therefore, with more criminals, proportionally?

Are Northern Europeans, on average, more naive?

Perhaps reflecting the distributions of personality types themselves, in which introverts would be more common among the naive and intelligent types (more common in the north of the old continent), and extroverts among the bandit and stupid types (more common in southern Europe).

However, introverted types also seem to be more common in Eastern Europe. For a possible difference in relation to Northern Europe, which would also explain its cultural and political differences, would be the variation in personality traits, for example: melancholic types, more naive, more common in Scandinavia and choleric, more likely to be bandit, more common in Eastern Europe (based on the personality typology of the four temperaments, which I have already suggested ratifying as valid, excluding only the hypothesis related to health that was also developed in classical Greece and from which the four temperaments derive); beyond historical-contextual differences, although ethnic differences* between Nordic//Germanic and Slavic peoples seem to be deeper than exclusive results of their respective histories.

* Correlatives with variations in mental traits, personality (intensity, types) and intelligence (levels, types...)

It is even interesting to think about how these proposed types can be more comprehensive as definitions of intelligence than other ways of approaching and comparing it, such as through IQ testing, if it is not expressed only through typically considered cognitive abilities, of a technical nature, such as linguistic and mathematical abilities, but also through creativity, rationality and emotional intelligence, that is, of a contextual nature, manifesting itself in all contexts, in which the participation and influence of personality traits, considered "non-cognitive", is as important as the "cognitive" ones.

It would also be important to think about how intrinsic these types are: to what extent are they reactive reflections of the environments in which we live, of more specific contexts, and to what extent do they reflect ourselves, or our deepest dispositions...

If, for example, individual X is more naive for structural reasons or also genetic/biological/hereditary??

I would bet that it is a combination of these influences and more, in which intrinsic factors, of the individual himself, would be more influential or determining, although extrinsic factors, of the environment, also have an influential role, but more in the sense of contributing to channeling pre-existing tendencies and never of forging them without a previous context of predisposition, so that, if someone is more naive, it is not exclusively because of his environment, but also because he already has this tendency or predisposition and that it was exacerbated by his interactions in the environments in which he finds himself. Therefore, this thought suggests a constant crossing or intersection between the individual and contextual perspectives, once again, the example of the possible predominance of naive people in most countries, not only due to intrinsic disposition, but also as a reflection of how societies are organized (in a variably parasitic way that involuntarily places the majority of the population in the position of deceived or exploited subordinates).

Africa:

North Africa: bandit/naive, stupid, intelligent

Sub-Saharan Africa: bandit, stupid/naive, intelligent

Comment: forgive me all those good Samaritans who only cultivate sweet thoughts about our species, especially about certain groups that have a history and a present of poverty and civilizational backwardness (although there is a certain relativity in determining what is civilizational progress or backwardness, which can easily be problematized, such as highlighting the typically parasitic character of complex societies, excessively verticalized, in social terms). I know that this is not the habit of "left-wing" moral puritanism, but we must prioritize the facts so that we can seek truly effective approaches to combat the social, economic and/or moral problems of our species, and this will not be done by embracing beautiful but fallacious narratives... Because if it is a social environment of wars, violence and poverty that incites our most selfish side, it is still unlikely that we will all react in the same way if or when subjected to similar circumstances. The evidence corroborates my statement... It may also be, and it is very likely that it is, that a very problematic social environment primarily reflects the actions of the populations themselves, such as pointing fingers at the people who live in a neighborhood for the dirtiness of their streets rather than looking for other culprits. So, the social problems of countries that were once colonies of European metropolises, especially African and Latin American countries, are not the exclusive result of European colonialism, but mainly of their own actions, of their "elites" and of their own populations, of course, not of all, but of a potentially non-negligible part, unfortunately. An example of this is urban crime in cities like Lagos, in Nigeria, and São Paulo, here, in Brazil; in general, in the endemic lack of solidarity and respect among the inhabitants of many underdeveloped countries, even more so than in the "developed" ones, which contributes to complicating their socioeconomic situations. Always emphasizing, once again, that this is not the entire population, whether in Africa, Nigeria or São Paulo, but that it is also not a tiny minority, and even in certain cases one might think that it is a majority. And even if it is a situation that is impossible to correct or improve, but not in the politically correct, simple and cute way that many believe.

Consequently, if there is no generalization (absolute association) of causality between racial or ethnic group and behavior, then there is no genuine or objectively determined "racism" in these statements.

In the case of Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, it is even possible to think of a less harsh explanation, still inevitably non-victimizing. That the human populations that live in this part of the African continent would be, for the most part, descendants of hunter/gatherers (and not of farmers or peasants), which would explain the cultural and cognitive mismatch between their average capacities for administration and social organization and the level of civilization that the colonizers imposed and left, after they passed their colonies back into the hands of their original "owners". In this sense, it can even be said that this perceived inability to manage complex societies by the majority of these populations is perfectly understandable, more understandable than in relation to populations that have evolved historically, for centuries, in civilized environments, and also do not present true civilizational excellence, which are far from it, which includes even many so-called first world countries (whether as a result of a gradual or punctual loss of this capacity, or even a chronic inability to develop it). Another relevant point that should always be emphasized is that, in addition to the proportion of these types, the way in which they are distributed hierarchically can also contribute to developing or delaying societies, such as, for example, in the case of countries in which their political and economic "elites" are definitely not composed of a large majority of intelligent individuals, but rather of criminals, even if their populations have many intelligent individuals, that is, if they are being underutilized. So, it is not enough to just know whether there are more of this or that type, but whether the worst type has predominated in spaces of power, as has been the case in practically all human societies and especially in the most chaotic ones, such as those in Africa.

Asia:

Northeast Asia: naive, intelligent/criminal, stupid (excluding China: criminal/intelligent/naive, stupid).

Southeast Asia: naive/criminal, intelligent/stupid

Indian Subcontinent: naive, stupid/criminal, intelligent

Middle East: criminal/naive, stupid, intelligent

Comment: also based on what I have noticed, types that contribute more negatively than positively, socially, seem to predominate in the less developed Asian regions, and, of course, also maintaining the high prevalence of naive people, based on the logic commented above, especially from a social context, of structural dominance of parasitism of the upper classes (especially of certain sectors) over the lower ones, in which a majority submits to the economic exploitation of a minority, literally working to enrich it, instead of there being a more egalitarian distribution of the wealth produced.

My observations:

Japan would stand out more positively in the entire Asian continent, more similar to the developed countries of the West;

China and the rest of East Asia would present a pattern more similar to the Asian continent;

Again, the underdevelopment of most Asian regions (but not only Asia) does not reflect only their historical-social context, but also the psychological and cognitive composition of the human types in their populations, such as those proposed by Carlo Cipolla, from the top to the base of their hierarchies. In fact, this composition of human types would be a more causal factor at the level of social and economic development, while the historical and social situation would be more of a dynamic reflection of this factor over time.

Social class

Rich: criminal, intelligent/naive, stupid

Middle class: naive/intelligent, criminal, stupid

Poor: criminal/naive, stupid, intelligent (?)

Comment: without wanting to "pull the wool over my eyes" for the social class in which I, theoretically and vaguely, fit, but it seems that, based on the possible perception that those in the middle class tend to have a relatively more balanced temperament, less greedy or impulsive, and also an average level of intelligence sufficient to be able to work in professions that pay reasonable salaries, that is, that they tend to express less extreme mental characteristics and that would end up reflecting in their positions in the social hierarchy, the same can be said about the other classes, however, with different tendencies: the "rich" being more prone to greed and, therefore, unscrupulous, in fact, their material wealth as a result of this, and as for the "poor", a greater disposition for impulsive behaviors and that are both respectively related to tendencies towards high and low cognitive abilities, explaining, in large part, but not all, their social situations (poverty is also a historical and arbitrary imposition of the "elites").

Religiosity

Atheist: naive, intelligent/stupid, criminal

Religious: naive, intelligent/criminal/stupid

Comment: based on what I have noticed about self-declared atheists, and disregarding those individuals who declare to have some religious belief, but it seems to be more a matter of pragmatics and/or social conformity than of a genuine disposition, this distribution of human types proposed by Cipolla for this group seems reasonable to me, with more naive and intelligent people and fewer criminals, but with a not so modest proportion of stupid people, especially due to the correlation with ideological fanaticism. In the case of self-declared religious people, it seems to me that this distribution is more balanced, especially because it is a much larger population than that of atheists, logically deducing that it contains more diversity of types. But also due to the psychological and cognitive nature of atheists, especially, a more homogeneous group, culturally, ideologically and intellectually. In any case, perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare them with religious fundamentalists. Because, for this group, I bet on a great parity between the naive, criminal and stupid types, which would not change much in relation to religious people, in general.

It is worth noting that this definition of intelligence by Cipolla seems to focus more on individual actions than on the quality of the intentions that lead to these actions and that is why I included the social context, since there is no way to separate them completely, especially based on this concept that was worked on by him.

Race:

Whites: naive/intelligent, bandit/stupid

Orientals: naive/intelligent/bandit, stupid

Jews (ethnicity): bandit/intelligent, naive, stupid

Blacks of African origin: bandit, stupid, naive/intelligent

Comment: possibly the most controversial comparison of all, but a necessary one, and one that has already been made above, indirectly, by nationalities. But since I do not submit to ideological filters to signal "canine loyalty" to biased narratives and discourses,including thinking that the only way to, in fact, understand a situation and seek the most effective means to begin to solve it, even more so when dealing with a situation that can be considered problematic, then, there is no way I can abstain from this battlefront against totalitarianisms, especially the "good" ones, based on emotional blackmail and/or moral fallacies and that have ulterior, third, or fourth intentions... Because here, once again, I only apply this typology to what can be perceived in the reality of human populations, categorized by racial or ethnic criteria, in which white Caucasians, especially those of European origin, and Northeast Asians, present the most favorable distributions or proportions of Cipolla's human types, with more intelligent and less stupid people, although they also present not at all modest proportions of naive people, who tend to be predominant, and of criminals, who tend to predominate at the top of their social hierarchies. What happens or has happened, until now, in this last century, especially, is a greater activity of the intelligent types that are already more abundant in these populations, compared to others. However, this relatively favorable pendulum has been regressing, particularly in Western societies, with the ideological or cultural hegemony of "wokeism", a kind of "virus" whose infection destroys the immune system of the affected society, destroying its most important bases ("social harmony", ethno-cultural cohesion...) that keep it functioning at a high level.

Sex

Men: bandit/intelligent, naive/stupid

Women: naive, intelligent/stupid, bandit

Comment: this distribution of Cipolla's human types, also according to my observations, would be more favorable to men intellectually, but not emotionally and morally. Because it is that situation that has been perceived, of there being more men among geniuses, but also among criminals, and the opposite pattern for women, of presenting less extreme statistical tendencies.

Sexual orientation

Heterosexuals: naive/bandit/intelligent, stupid

LGBTs: naive, stupid/intelligent/criminal

Comment: heterosexuals represent the human average, as they are the majority. Therefore, with a possible tendency for greater parity between naive, criminals and intelligent, although this does not mean that the proportion of chronically or predominantly stupid human beings is small. LGBTs, on the other hand, would present a greater incidence of stupid types in relation to heterosexuals.

Politicians: criminal, stupid, intelligent/naive

Artists (the group, in general): naive, stupid/intelligent, criminal

Businesspeople: criminal, intelligent/stupid, naive

Comment: three examples of professional classes and their stereotypes, if these types of Cipolla are applied, will be reiterated: both the political and merchant classes, with an abundance of criminals or chronically selfish people, while the artistic class would have a prevalence of naive types. Also note that the profile of artists would be opposite to that of businessmen.

Leftists (followers, not their political "elites" and which also applies to those below): naive/stupid/intelligent, criminal

Rightists: naive/criminal/intelligent/stupid

Comment: "conservative" rightists and "progressive" leftists, despite presenting some average differences in beliefs and behaviors, would be relatively similar in this distribution of types, with a predominance of naive people and a more equal distribution of types. They would differ in the proportion of criminals (greater among those on the right) and stupid people (greater among those on the left). And always emphasizing that the type considered less common is not necessarily insignificant in statistical terms, as it also depends on the representation of the other types in the same group or population.

Scientists: smart/criminal, naive, stupid

-- Academics: naive, smart/stupid/criminal

Teachers: naive, smart/stupid, criminal

Activists: naive/stupid, smart, criminal

4 or 3 intellectual classes and ½, the most intelligent of which would logically be that of genuine scientists, which is why I separated them from academics, a category that is vaguer in terms of the definition of science in the sense of a profession.

Teachers would be in a more intermediate position in this ranking, while activists would occupy the lowest position. It is also notable the increase in frequency of the stupid type concomitant with the decrease of the bandit type, from the highest level to the lowest, a possibly high incidence of bandits among scientists and of stupid people among academics (the vast majority of times represented by university professors and undergraduates), which seems illogical in theory, but not in reality, especially if we base ourselves on the weak criteria that have been used in the evaluation and selection processes of both groups, for example, that there is a tacit disregard for the assessment of capacity or qualitative proficiency for scientific work, essentially including adherence to and respect for the most basic principles of science, such as intellectual honesty and impartiality.

Mais pensamentos de alfinetes/More Pin Thoughts

 O fanatismo é uma identificação ou atração confundida com vocação 

O talento sem vocação é um desperdício 

A verdadeira vocação é a existência de uma atração relacionada a um talento

"A EXTREMA direita venceu" 

Temem e lamentam aqueles que se intitulam, com orgulho, como "RADICAIS", "subversivos"...

"Eu odeio a polarização política"

Dizem muitos esquerdistas, dos grupos político-ideológicos mais fanatizados e responsáveis por essa mesma polarização... 

Por mais primárias, superficiais, insensíveis e supersticiosas sejam muitas das crenças conservadoras, incluindo tipicamente a crença religiosa, ainda assim, elas têm preservado um mínimo de conhecimentos básicos e práticos, tal como de que só existem homens e mulheres (e adaptado ao contexto trans: de que um homem não pode se tornar uma mulher) ou de que existem raças humanas, em oposição às crenças "progressistas' 

Isso significa que, uma parte do que hoje em dia tem sido demonizado como "preconceitos' da "extrema direita", nada mais é do que uma herança cultural desse mínimo de conhecimentos básicos e práticos que eram passados de geração em geração 

Parece comum subestimar o quão grave pode ser uma deficiência em capacidade racional. Pois uma demonstração de sua periculosidade, primeiramente ao próprio indivíduo que apresenta esse déficit, é uma incapacidade de tecer uma boa compreensão sobre o mundo que tende a torná-lo suscetível a adotar crenças e atitudes que aumentam a sua insegurança pessoal, mesmo se inconsciente disso, por exemplo, de ser ou se tornar favorável ou indiferente à políticas de imigração em massa ao seu país 

Ainda assim, existem crenças progressistas que são basicamente complementares às conservadoras por também se basearem em preocupações legítimas, tal como a preocupação pela destruição massiva do meio ambiente por lucros, normalizada e justificada por muitos conservadores...

Típico ateu 

"Eu faço zombarias apenas com o cristianismo porque apenas os cristãos que tentam me converter à sua religião, isto é, que praticam proselitismo"

Pois um típico ateu, um ideólogo "progressista", reclama de proselitistas cristãos, mas se esquece ou não tem a menor consciência de que também se tornou um proselitista de suas ideologias ao defender que sejam impostas institucionalmente, diga-se, ideologias plantadas ou politicamente defendidas por "messiânicos" do sionismo internacional (plano de longo prazo de domínio político e estrutural do "povo' judeu sobre o mundo, começando com o mundo ocidental, em pleno vigor especialmente depois da segunda guerra mundial e detectável pela confluência de padrões tal como a enorme desproporção de judeus em espaços de poder em vários países ocidentais e também em movimentos que visam alterar cultural e etnicamente esses mesmos países) 

Argumento comum de um ateu brasileiro e autodeclarado progressista

"Eu critico especialmente o cristianismo por ser a religião mais importante no nosso país. Por isso que não faço o mesmo com o islamismo e o judaísmo" 

Então, por que você simplesmente não se abstém de ter uma opinião sobre esses grupos com base nesse argumento de não serem comuns por aqui?? Porque eu sei que você costuma ter opiniões mais positivas sobre essas 'religiões" e seus seguidores...

Eu não sou totalmente contra tentar converter os outros às próprias crenças, especialmente se forem baseadas em ponderação, objetividade e imparcialidade, isto é, em racionalidade. E, também, se todos nós fazemos isso, de qualquer maneira, mesmo se de maneira indireta ou inconsciente...

"Segundo previsões demográficas, a África subsaariana terá quatro BILHÕES de pessoas até o final do século XXI"

Pois dependendo de como você reagir a essa frase, isso pode indicar o quão realmente ignorante ou conhecedor você está sobre o mundo, especialmente quanto aos conhecimentos mais básicos, como aqueles relacionados ao comportamento humano...

Mais do que um pensador, o filósofo verdadeiro tem que se comportar omo um cartógrafo da realidade, como um criador de mapas de verdades...

Um esquerdista típico ao ler "A Revolução dos Bichos" pensa que é um dos porcos e não o cavalo...

Se uma "mulher trans" (um homem) pode disputar com mulheres em competições esportivas, então, por que brancos não podem se declarar negros ou pardos e disputar vagas de cotas na educação superior, concurso público ou emprego no setor privado??

Hein "esquerda" BURGUESA??   

Se ofender fosse um crime tão sério quanto espancar, estuprar ou matar, eu já deveria ter recebido uma boa quantia da justiça; todos nós já teríamos ficha criminal e alguns ou muitos "juízes da moralidade pós moderna" estariam atrás das grades...

O maior inimigo das artes é o relativista cultural

Em um cenário de democracia completa, o direito à livre associação seria um dos direitos mais importantes 

Fanáticos adoram cultuar seus "Goldsteins" ou "inimigos máximos', também por ser um modo de canalizar toda percepção de mal para o "outro lado" da trincheira, enquanto eles mesmos se abstêm de um auto exame de consciência

É comum que um professor seja uma pessoa comum que se pensa como um intelectual 

É comum que um ''historiador'' ou 'professor" de história esquerdista se comporte como um mero propagandista político 

A maldade de direita tende a ser sincera, orgulhosa e natural. A maldade de esquerda tende a ser hipócrita, disfarçada e cínica 

Talvez fosse melhor mudarmos o nome da profissão de jornalista para "pau mandado do poder", se a maioria deles se comporta exatamente desse jeito

O acadêmico "não-cientista" é, no mínimo, um burocrata e, no máximo, um pseudo-intelectual 

Quem mais "educa" ou influencia os filhos não são os pais, mas as ruas ou o meio e eles mesmos. Muito notável pelas diferenças intergeracionais de comportamento e tendências culturais 

O nível de ignorância de muitas pessoas continua no mesmo nível de crença em superstições em desprezo concomitante às evidências 

O instinto é o saber sem o aprender. Uma herança direta 

"Ninguém é obrigado a gostar ou a tolerar ninguém...

Mas é obrigado a respeitar...."

Só quando há respeito por ambas as partes...

Se Cuba é uma democracia plena, então, por que não acontecem plebiscitos legítimos que ratificam os desejos de sua população? Por exemplo, por que o povo cubano não pode decidir sobre a possibilidade ou liberdade de viajar ao exterior??

Tem um tipo de idiota que se assemelha ao gênio por também não dar importância à opinião alheia, seguindo a sua própria intuição, dependendo apenas do seu próprio juízo. E por isso que é um idiota e não um gênio 

O típico "nerd" é mais um idiota que se acha mais sábio que os outros, mais um falso positivo de inteligência racional 

Existem traços de personalidade e de inteligência que são tão intensos e naturais, ou tão constantes e indiferentes à qualquer influência do meio, que parecem ser mais intrínsecos do que os que parecem ser mais suscetíveis ou derivados de influências extrínsecas

Tem muitos abortistas fanáticos que dariam excelentes abortos 

Muitos se tornam ateus mirando na razão, mas acertando no niilismo e no narcisismo intelectual 

Afirmações extraordinárias sem evidências extraordinárias definem a estrutura de qualquer pseudociência ou pseudofilosofia 

O privilégio e o vitimismo podem fazer uma pessoa acreditar em qualquer coisa

É comum que o "artista pós moderno" seja aquele indivíduo que encontra-se desprovido de talento e que se beneficia de uma boa situação socioeconômica para investir em seu delírio de grandeza

No Brasil e em outros países, enquanto a esquerda promove a disgenia intelectual pelo incentivo natalista de grupos menos inteligentes, com base em hegemonia institucional e imposição de lavagem cerebral com pseudociências do bem e falácias morais, a direita faz o mesmo só que pelo fundamentalismo religioso. Ambas, inimigas da evolução humana mais ideal

Uma das maiores falácias sobre a bondade, amplamente adotada pela esquerda, e que também é uma falácia sobre a justiça, é a de que são plenamente possíveis mesmo sem imparcialidade e objetividade ou que podem ser praticadas em seu estado mais puro, como se isso existisse 

Aderência ideológica acrítica ou fanática reflete uma incapacidade de diferenciar o falso de um verdadeiro expertise ou conhecimento específico; uma deficiência intelectual qualitativa que parece comum entre professores, jornalistas... Um tipo mais "fordista", muito estreito em suas capacidades cognitivas, muito especializado em um conjunto mais restrito de 'conhecimentos" e que pode ser um fator que contribui para essa deficiência; que foi, inclusive, citada no livro "A Revolução dos Bichos" ("duas patas ruim, quatro patas bom")

Associada a essa possível ou provável deficiência cognitiva, também uma imaturidade emocional que impede o mais ideologicamente fanático de aceitar quando suas crenças não correspondem aos fatos ou não são ponderadas 

E também seria interessante saber se essa deficiência comunga com uma ideia de "minha autoria', de que é o cognitivo que influencia o emotivo e que, portanto, nesse caso, seria uma tendência perceptiva mais autocentrada que contribuiria para um narcisismo intelectual e, então, para déficits em capacidade racional e emocional (intrapessoal ou de autoconhecimento)

Isso também significa que se está apoiando intelectual e até moralmente em um conjunto mais fechado de ideias, crenças e/ou pensamentos que não são inteiramente baseados em ponderação analítica, imparcialidade, objetividade, isto é, em uma abordagem realmente racional 

Para você conseguir perseverar dentro de uma universidade, ou você precisa gostar muito de ciência e ainda ser capaz de avançar seus projetos genuinamente científicos ou ser excepcionalmente compatível com o ambiente de extrema conformidade ideológica que predomina nesse ambiente 

Alguns (ou muitos?) dos maiores defensores da democracia implicitamente a conceituam como sinônimo de anarquia ou libertinagem 

Se a educação superior realmente priorizasse a qualidade em seus processos avaliativos e seletivos, dentro de um contexto acadêmico, isto é, se priorizasse qualidades essenciais ao trabalho científico, como uma vocação e uma capacidade de buscar pela verdade objetiva, é bem possível que as universidades seriam muito diferentes do que são hoje, já que muitos dos acadêmicos que se enveredam em pseudociências, especialmente em "pseudociências do bem", enviesadas ideologicamente à esquerda no espectro político e amplamente toleradas nesses ambientes, não teriam espaço ou já seriam rejeitados durante os processos seletivos

Fanaticism is an identification or attraction confused with vocation

Talent without vocation is a waste

True vocation is the existence of an attraction related to a talent

"The FAR right won"

They fear and regret those who proudly call themselves "RADICALS", "subversives"...

"I hate political polarization"

Many leftists say, from the most fanatical political-ideological groups, responsible for this same polarization...

However primary, superficial, insensitive and superstitious many conservative beliefs may be, typically including religious belief, they have nevertheless preserved a minimum of basic and practical knowledge, such as that there are only men and women (and adapted to the trans context. : that a man cannot become a woman) or that human races exist, as opposed to "progressive" beliefs

This means that part of what today has been demonized as "prejudices" of the "extreme right", is nothing more than a cultural inheritance of that minimum of basic and practical knowledge that was passed down from generation to generation.

It seems common to underestimate how serious a deficiency in rational capacity can be. Because a demonstration of their dangerousness, primarily to the individual who presents this deficit, is an inability to form a good understanding of the world, which tends to make them susceptible to adopting beliefs and attitudes that increase their personal insecurity, even if they are unconscious of it. , for example, of being or becoming favorable or indifferent to mass immigration policies to your country

Still, there are progressive beliefs that are basically complementary to conservative ones because they are also based on legitimate concerns, such as the concern about the massive destruction of the environment for profit, normalized and justified by many conservatives...

Typical atheist

"I only make fun of Christianity because only Christians who try to convert me to their religion, that is, who practice proselytism"

Because a typical atheist, a "progressive" ideologue, complains about Christian proselytizers, but forgets or is not at all aware that he has also become a proselytizer of his ideologies by defending that they be institutionally imposed, that is, planted or politically planted ideologies defended by "messianics" of international Zionism (long-term plan of political and structural domination of the Jewish "people" over the world, starting with the Western world, in full force especially after the second world war and detectable by the confluence of patterns such as the enormous disproportion of Jews in spaces of power in several Western countries and also in movements that aim to culturally and ethnically alter these same countries)

Common argument from a Brazilian atheist and self-declared progressive

"I especially criticize Christianity because it is the most important religion in our country. That's why I don't do the same with Islam and Judaism"

So why don't you just refrain from having an opinion about these groups based on this argument that they are not common around here? Because I know you tend to have more positive opinions about these 'religions' and their followers...

I'm not totally against trying to convert others to one's beliefs, especially if they are based on consideration, objectivity and impartiality, that is, on rationality. And also, if we all do this, in any way, even if indirectly or unconsciously...

"According to demographic forecasts, sub-Saharan Africa will have four BILLION people by the end of the 21st century"

Because depending on how you react to this phrase, it could indicate how truly ignorant or knowledgeable you are about the world, especially regarding the most basic knowledge, such as that related to human behavior...

More than a thinker, the true philosopher has to behave like a cartographer of reality, like a creator of maps of truths...

A typical leftist reading "Animal Farm" thinks he is one of the pigs and not the horse...

If a "trans woman" (a man) can compete with women in sporting competitions, then why can't white people declare themselves black or mixed race and compete for quota places in higher education, public examinations or employment in the private sector?

Huh, bourgeois “left”??

If offending was as serious a crime as beating, raping or killing, I should have already received a good amount from justice; We would all already have a criminal record and some or many "judges of postmodern morality" would be behind bars...

The greatest enemy of the arts is the cultural relativist

In a scenario of complete democracy, the right to free association would be one of the most important rights

Fanatics love to worship their "Goldsteins" or "maximum enemies", also because it is a way of channeling all perception of evil to the "other side" of the trench, while theythey themselves refrain from self-examination of conscience

It is common for a teacher to be an ordinary person who thinks of himself as an intellectual

It is common for a left-wing ''historian'' or ''professor'' of history to behave like a mere political propagandist.

Right-wing evil tends to be sincere, proud and natural. Left wing evil tends to be hypocritical, disguised and cynical

Maybe it would be better if we changed the name of the profession of journalist to "stick of power", if the majority of them behave exactly like that

The "non-scientist" academic is, at best, a bureaucrat and, at most, a pseudo-intellectual

Those who most "educate" or influence children are not the parents, but the streets or the environment and themselves. Very notable for intergenerational differences in behavior and cultural trends

The level of ignorance of many people remains at the same level of belief in superstitions and concomitant disregard for evidence

Instinct is knowing without learning. A direct inheritance

"No one is obliged to like or tolerate anyone...

But you are obliged to respect...."

Only when there is respect on both sides...

If Cuba is a full democracy, then why aren't there legitimate plebiscites that ratify the wishes of its population? For example, why can't the Cuban people decide on the possibility or freedom of traveling abroad?

There is a type of idiot who is similar to genius because he also does not care about other people's opinions, following his own intuition, depending only on his own judgment. And that's why he's an idiot and not a genius

The typical "nerd" is more of an idiot who thinks he is wiser than others, more of a false positive of rational intelligence

There are personality and intelligence traits that are so intense and natural, or so constant and indifferent to any environmental influence, that they seem to be more intrinsic than those that seem to be more susceptible to or derived from extrinsic influences.

There are many fanatical abortionists who would provide excellent abortions

Many become atheists aiming for reason, but hitting on nihilism and intellectual narcissism

Extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence define the structure of any pseudoscience or pseudophilosophy

Privilege and victimhood can make a person believe anything

It is common for the "postmodern artist" to be that individual who is devoid of talent and who benefits from a good socioeconomic situation to invest in his delusion of grandeur.

In Brazil and other countries, while the left promotes intellectual dysgenics through the natalist encouragement of less intelligent groups, based on institutional hegemony and the imposition of brainwashing with good pseudosciences and moral fallacies, the right does the same only through religious fundamentalism . Both, enemies of the most ideal human evolution

One of the biggest fallacies about kindness, widely adopted by the left, and which is also a fallacy about justice, is that they are fully possible even without impartiality and objectivity or that they can be practiced in their purest state, as if this existed.

Uncritical or fanatical ideological adherence reflects an inability to differentiate false from true expertise or specific knowledge; a qualitative intellectual deficiency that seems common among teachers, journalists... A more "Fordist" type, very narrow in its cognitive capabilities, very specialized in a more restricted set of 'knowledge' and which may be a factor that contributes to this deficiency ; which was even mentioned in the book "Animal Revolution" ("two legs bad, four legs good").

Associated with this possible or probable cognitive deficiency is also an emotional immaturity that prevents the most ideologically fanatical from accepting when their beliefs do not correspond to the facts or are not considered.

And it would also be interesting to know whether this deficiency shares an idea of ​​"my authorship", that it is the cognitive that influences the emotional and that, therefore, in this case, it would be a more self-centered perceptual tendency that would contribute to intellectual narcissism and, therefore, , for deficits in rational and emotional capacity (intrapersonal or self-knowledge)

This also means that one is relying intellectually and even morally on a more closed set of ideas, beliefs and/or thoughts that are not entirely based on analytical consideration, impartiality, objectivity, that is, on a truly rational approach.

For you to be able to persevere within a university, you either need to really like science and still be able to advance your genuinely scientific projects or be exceptionally compatible with the environment of extreme ideological conformity that predominates in this environment.

Some (or many?) of the greatest defenders of democracy implicitly conceptualize it as synonymous with anarchy or libertinism

If higher education really/prioritized quality in their evaluative and selective processes, within an academic context, that is, if they prioritized qualities essential to scientific work, such as a vocation and an ability to search for objective truth, it is quite possible that universities would be very different from what are today, since many of the academics who engage in pseudosciences, especially in "pseudosciences of good", ideologically biased to the left of the political spectrum and widely tolerated in these environments, would not have space or would already be rejected during the selection processes

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.