Is the Iceland experiment an example of the social environment being more important than biology?

An analysis of the intergenerational shift in behaviors in that country

In the 1990s, over 40% of Icelandic youths aged 15 to 16 reported excessive alcohol consumption. Other substances—such as cigarettes and marijuana—were also consumed at levels comparatively higher than in other European countries. However, following a series of measures adopted by the Icelandic government, this "hedonistic" youth culture changed dramatically; today, only 5% of young people in the same age group report heavy alcohol consumption, compared to 42% three decades ago. Regarding cigarettes and marijuana, the intergenerational differences in consumption are equally striking: dropping from 23% to 3% and from 17% to 7%, respectively.

https://www.espn.com.br/futebol/artigo/_/id/4306536/lado-b-da-copa-islandia-o-pais-que-usou-o-esporte-para-combater-o-alcoolismo-entre-jovens

If this remarkable behavioral shift is directly linked to the introduction of government measures aimed at fostering healthy habits—such as sports—from an early age, as well as restricting access to alcohol and other drugs, then it serves as a prime example of human plasticity. It illustrates the broader capacity to alter or change behavior—if not about a single individual, then at least within a group (it would be interesting to know the current status of the Icelandic youths who were assessed in the 1990s and reported high consumption of alcohol and other substances). It also demonstrates just how powerful an influence the environment can have on us. ...of just how socially conformist we can be... But it also shows that, even before—when "Icelandic youth" were disproportionately mired in habits harmful to physical and mental health—the situation didn't apply to the entire group; 60% (a majority) did not fall into the "bad habits" statistics... It demonstrates that even when homogenizing forces exist within certain social groups, there is a strong likelihood that at least a minority will not "follow the herd"... This also highlights the power of biology itself as an influence on behavior—perhaps the most important factor. After all, both the young person who falls into the world of addiction and the one who does not are primarily—and, I would argue, deterministically—influenced by their behavioral biology: the morphological characteristics of their brains and the hormonal makeup of their bodies, in constant interaction with the environment, these traits manifest as behavioral tendencies that may be similar or vastly different. There is no such thing as someone "from nowhere" taking up smoking while another person in the same group quits; in terms of behavior, nothing ever happens "from nowhere." There is no *blank slate* inside our heads leading us down completely random paths; the range of behaviors we can adopt is predetermined—provided we aren't born literally without brains, and given that the brains we are born are result from combinations of our parents' genetic material, which already possesses its own specific individual makeup. We are certainly born with developing brains, but never without pre-existing or predetermined elements—contrary to the notion of a blank slate waiting for experience to write upon it. Although many believe this—including supposed experts in related fields—the Icelandic experiment does not prove that human genetics or biology is entirely a product of the social and cultural environment; rather, it shows that because our biology is intrinsically plastic, it allows for a wider range of behavioral variation. Some might still argue that various individual and environmental factors operate as a chain of influences... ...can lead some or many to follow certain paths. The "anatomical structure" of multiple, highly specific causal factors leading an individual or group to adopt certain behaviors is not inherently superfluous, as it can serve to illustrate a trajectory. However, it does not support the argument—which might otherwise be used to bolster the "blank slate" hypothesis—given that intrinsic predispositions remain the most important factor. Indeed, there is a correlation between addiction and certain personality traits, such as neuroticism, as well as physiological predispositions—for instance, the capacity to tolerate high levels of alcohol in the bloodstream and how this can contribute to the establishment of a specific cycle of alcohol addiction. 

Furthermore, there is another interesting fact not shown in the linked report: the crime rate in that country has not decreased significantly since the government began steering younger generations away from cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol, as illustrated in the linked graph..below, having remained relatively constant (generally very low) from that time until the most recent years of the 2020s. This is interesting because it is common to attribute some irrationally antisocial behaviors to alcohol or drug abuse. And even though there is a logical link between behavioral changes and excessive substance use, even in that dire scenario of total surrender to addiction, intrinsic factors—such as predominant personality traits—continue to exert influence; after all, not every addict goes around mugging people or committing even graver acts, such as unprovoked violence or even homicide. This may demonstrate that certain behaviors or habits are more malleable than others, but it also suggests that this experiment is particularly well-suited to countries with populations ethnically similar to Iceland’s—such as its Scandinavian cousins—whereas populations that are culturally, psychologically, and cognitively distinct might well show different responses... Even if it could be adopted as a medium- to long-term public policy in other countries...

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/isl/iceland/crime-rate-statistics

To answer the question posed in the title: the social environment certainly influences human behavior. However, behavior is never shaped solely by the environment; for the interaction to be complete, it depends first on the behavioral biology of the population or the individual. Secondly, if the "environment" is merely a set of factors determined in arbitrary and variable ways, the only true agent—and the primary one in this dynamic—is always the living being/ human being. Consequently, the most important directives and determinants originate from within that individual. Just as a human being cannot fly unaided without the necessary biological machinery and physical and mental capabilities, neither can they overcome their own limitations—specifically, the very traits that define and characterize them. For if—based on the example in the text—he lacks the psychological and even physiological predispositions to become addicted to alcohol or drugs, it is highly likely that he will not end up trapped in that problematic cycle of reward in his daily life, even if he happens to be exposed to it...

For and Against "Vinheteiro"

Famous Brazilian YouTuber with over five million followers whose channel's fixed theme is classical music. While I agree with him that Brazilian music has declined significantly in recent decades—even if that's an empirical and objective observation—I completely disagree that MPB (Brazilian Popular Music), and especially its greatest exponents, are as "crap" (a vulgar expression he always uses to refer to anything he dislikes) as the most popular names currently in the Brazilian music scene. I totally disagree that Caetano Veloso, Gilberto Gil, or Elis Regina, for example, are equivalent to the biggest names in modern sertanejo and carioca funk, the two dominant musical genres today (first half of the 2020s). They are definitely not "crap", and I even think Vinheteiro believes that, not only because of his adoration for classical music, but also because of his ideological antipathy towards most of the most renowned singers and/or composers of MPB (Brazilian Popular Music), since, while he clearly positions himself more to the right on the political-ideological spectrum, they follow in the opposite direction. Basically, a possible corruption of discernment by mixing personal taste, political and ideological positioning, and impartial evaluation of the quality of artistic works. If it is thanks to the "old school" MPB that Brazil managed to produce a genuinely national musical culture, and one that is highly appreciated abroad...

A hypothetical example of how many people do not understand the relationship between culture and human behavior

 What if all the rules of Japanese culture (including even learning the language) were imposed on Brazilians who are being born now, from their first years of life???

Would they become "culturally Japanese"??

Depending on which Brazilians we are talking about, it is likely that there would be a variable cultural change. And, in general, it is also likely that non-significant changes would occur. Therefore, yes, the environment influences human behavior. But this influence is not absolute or predominant. First, for there to be a reaction of adherence to a certain social or environmental pressure, there must always be a predisposition, so it is safe to say that no behavior is possible without an underlying (biological) possibility or potential. Second, the generation of Brazilians who were subjected to this experiment is unlikely to replicate the typical behaviors of the Japanese, or of the original culture, since we are dealing with two distinct populations, cognitively and psychologically. So, even if the cultural bases were the same, the average and most intrinsic characteristics of the two populations would contribute to altering the final result, in the sense that the "culturally Japaneseized" Brazilians would not become exact copies of the original Japanese and, even though we are dealing with such distinct populations, another type of culture, more intermediate, but also more possibly closer to Brazilian culture than to Japanese, would emerge... But this is not what many people think, since they believe precisely in the determinism of culture or the environment (a flat-eartherism of behavior) and not of biology, that, if a certain population receives a certain education, it, for the most part, will behave completely accordingly, believing that the differences between an average Japanese and an average Brazilian are only cultural and not that they are reflections of their most intrinsic behavioral dispositions and also that, in the same way that Brazilians can be fully educated like Japanese, the opposite would also be possible, another type of flat-eartherism of behavior, of the indefinite or infinite adaptive plasticity of the human being, as if our psychological and cognitive limits/potentials were completely alterable or surmountable.

Como a cultura humana frequentemente se desvia do que deveria ser sua função principal/How human culture often deviates from what should be its primary function

 A cultura humana, originalmente, consiste em um manual de orientação, de conhecimento, compreensão... Mas desde há muito tempo que tem se desviado do que deveria ser sua função principal ou pelo menos a ideal. Evidências que concordam com essa afirmação são abundantes. Tal como a falta de conhecimento, que parece ser comum a muitos seres humanos, sobre sinais no ambiente que podem indicar a ocorrência de algum evento natural perigoso, como uma tsunami ou ondas gigantes. Foi por causa disso que muitas pessoas perderam suas vidas na tsunami de 2004 que varreu as costas de vários países banhados pelo oceano índico. E não estou falando apenas de moradores locais sem uma instrução adequada, mas também de turistas vindos de países de primeiro mundo que ignoraram os sinais anteriores a uma tsunami, especialmente quando acontece um terremoto de grande magnitude, posterior regressão da água do mar e, também, por estarem no litoral da mesma região. Pois a simples ruptura de um padrão conhecido já deveria soar como um alarme preocupante, suficiente para a adoção do comportamento mais básico numa situação como essa que seria de se afastar de onde se pressupõe que a ameaça virá. Mas não são poucos aqueles que, enfurnados nas cidades, se esquecem ou nunca chegam a aprender sobre como proceder em situações de risco, um aspecto que deveria ser compulsório a uma cultura ou sociedade humana.  

Outro exemplo de como a cultura humana tem evoluído de maneira bastante distorcida do seu objetivo primordial ou ideal é a existência de grupos grandes de pessoas que acreditam que um fluxo constante e volumoso de imigrantes estrangeiros ao país em que vivem, ainda mais se forem oriundos de culturas diferentes, não terá consequências sérias à sua ordem social e identidade nacional a médio e longo prazo. 

Um último exemplo que nega o bom senso, o pensamento racional aplicado, é a negação do impacto extremo da ação humana na natureza, exatamente de se pensar que ações extremas não costumam gerar repercussões extremas...

Então, é possível concluir que certas culturas ou ideologias podem deteriorar ao invés de melhorar a compreensão que se tem sobre o mundo (eu também poderia citar a crença religiosa como um exemplo de cultura que costuma causar mais desorientação do que esclarecimento). 

No mais, é certo que praticamente toda crença político-ideológica, ou religiosa, que é adotada, tende a gerar mais bem-estar do que mal-estar ao indivíduo, pelo menos inicialmente; de lhe passar uma sensação de conforto, confiança, certeza... mesmo que possa prejudicá-lo mais tarde. Porém, esse efeito positivo não pode servir como justificativa para a adoção de crenças muito desviantes aos fatos ou a uma ponderação analítica, pois como demonstrado acima, elas podem causar problemas graves, mesmo se não estão causando no tempo presente ou apresentando consequências negativas e imediatas a nível pessoal. 

O custo-benefício da socialização 

Mais socializado o indivíduo está, mais profundamente familiarizado com uma cultura e suas normais sociais ele está. E isso vem com custos e benefícios. O maior benefício é uma facilidade teórica para navegar nesse meio ao conhecer bem suas normas. O maior custo é que esse conhecimento pode se sobrepor ou substituir outros conhecimentos mais importantes, relevantes inclusive à própria sobrevivência. Isto é, isso pode ser supernaturalizado e gerar dependência naquele que acredita. Tal como o exemplo do politicamente correto vigente no mundo ocidental, em que se doutrina a acreditar no dogma da igualdade absoluta dos seres humanos no lugar de uma compreensão mais imparcial e verdadeira sobre as nossas diferenças. Então, essa troca pode orientar o doutrinado a tomar esse dogma como uma verdade incontestável e passar a agir de acordo com a sua crença, como de se anestesiar no caso de um cenário de alto fluxo migratório, justificando ou racionalizando com base no que apreendeu como moral ou socialmente aceitável de se pensar, priorizando sua aceitação (ou camuflagem) em seus círculos sociais sobre a sua capacidade racional de análise e julgamento adequados. E mesmo se sabe que se trata de uma inverdade, e só a defenda em discurso e não na prática, ainda assim, essa passividade diante de uma situação com grande potencial para se agravar pode custar caro mais tarde. Então, se a cultura é um resultado evidente da evolução cognitiva de nossa espécie e deveria nos ajudar a nos orientar, desde há um bom tempo que tem servido para outros propósitos, até mesmo o propósito de nos desorientar, especialmente quando é moldada para inculcar no povo o que certas "elites" querem. 

Human culture originally consists of a manual of guidance, knowledge, understanding... But for a long time now it has deviated from what should be its main function, or at least its ideal. Evidence that supports this statement is abundant. Such as the lack of knowledge, which seems to be common to many human beings, about signs in the environment that may indicate the occurrence of some dangerous natural event, such as a tsunami or giant waves. It was because of this that many people lost their lives in the 2004 tsunami that swept the coasts of several countries bathed by the Indian Ocean. And I am not just talking about local residents without adequate education, but also about tourists from first world countries who ignored the signs prior to a tsunami, especially when a large earthquake occurs, followed by a retreat of the sea water, and also because they were on the coast of the same region. After all, the simple rupture of a known pattern should already sound a worrying alarm, enough for the adoption of the most basic behavior in a situation like this, which would be to move away from where the threat is supposed to come from. But there are many who, stuck in cities, forget or never learn how to proceed in risky situations, an aspect that should be compulsory for a human culture or society.

Another example of how human culture has evolved in a way that is quite distorted from its primary or ideal objective is the existence of large groups of people who believe that a constant and large flow of foreign immigrants to the country in which they live, especially if they come from different cultures, will not have serious consequences for their social order and national identity in the medium and long term.

A final example that denies common sense, applied rational thought, is the denial of the extreme impact of human action on nature, precisely because it is thought that extreme actions do not usually generate extreme repercussions...

Therefore, it is possible to conclude that certain cultures or ideologies can deteriorate rather than improve one's understanding of the world (I could also cite religious belief as an example of a culture that tends to cause more disorientation than enlightenment).

Furthermore, it is true that practically every political-ideological or religious belief that is adopted tends to generate more well-being than discomfort for the individual, at least initially; it gives them a feeling of comfort, confidence, certainty... even if it can harm them later. However, this positive effect cannot serve as a justification for adopting beliefs that deviate greatly from the facts or from analytical consideration, because as demonstrated above, they can cause serious problems, even if they are not causing them in the present time or presenting immediate negative consequences on a personal level.

The cost-benefit of socialization

The more socialized an individual is, the more deeply familiar he or she is with a culture and its social norms. And this comes with costs and benefits. The greatest benefit is a theoretical ease in navigating this environment by knowing its norms well. The greatest cost is that this knowledge can overlap or replace other more important knowledge, relevant even to survival itself. In other words, it can be supernaturalized and generate dependence in the believer. Just like the example of political correctness in force in the Western world, which indoctrinates people to believe in the dogma of absolute equality of human beings instead of a more impartial and true understanding of our differences. This exchange can then guide the indoctrinated person to take this dogma as an indisputable truth and start acting according to the belief, such as anesthetizing herself in the case of a scenario of high migratory flow, justifying or rationalizing based on what she have learned as morally or socially acceptable to think, prioritizing her acceptance (or camouflage) in her social circles over her rational capacity for adequate analysis and judgment. And even if she knows that this is an untruth, and only defend it in speech and not in practice, this passivity in the face of a situation with great potential to worsen can still cost her dearly later. So, if culture is an evident result of the cognitive evolution of our species and should help us to orient ourselves, for a long time now it has served other purposes, even the purpose of disorienting us, especially when it is shaped to inculcate in the people what certain "elites" want.

Ideologia, filosofia/sabedoria e a metáfora do manual e do automático/Ideology, philosophy/wisdom and the metaphor of manual and automatic

 Mais informações acumulamos, mais automáticos se tornam os nossos padrões de raciocínio, porque, ao invés de continuarmos procurando por respostas, passamos a usar as que já estão sob os nossos domínios particulares. Basicamente, se trata de preencher lacunas vagas de consciência resultantes da própria evolução da inteligência humana, de flexibilização dos instintos tornando possível o preenchimento dessas lacunas com novas informações, de uma maneira mais interessante, flexível, mas também mais imprecisa, incerta... O bônus e o ônus de uma inteligência mais complexa. Pois a maximização do bônus, pelo menos no campo intelectual, acontece quando os nossos sistemas pessoais de crenças são solidamente construídos a partir de conhecimentos e ponderação analítica. Em outras palavras, quando nossas ideologias pessoais são unicamente a filosofia ou a sabedoria. Já o oposto disso, de maximização dos ônus, pelo menos em um campo intelectual, é quando são predominantemente baseadas em outras ideologias e não pela única que se consiste na busca pela verdade. Então, a priori, é naturalmente esperado que os nossos padrões de pensamento ou raciocínio se tornem mais automáticos do que manuais de acordo com que acumulamos mais informações. Porém, quando nossas ideologias pessoais são ou se tornam, sistematicamente, a própria filosofia, isso significa que estamos, de fato, acumulando conhecimentos, melhorando nossa compreensão do mundo e realmente aumentando a nossa inteligência (que parece ser independente das pontuações em testes cognitivos). Também significa que, apesar da tendência inevitável de redução da flexibilidade dos padrões de raciocínio, por essa via, ainda os mantemos mais flexíveis do que se seguirmos o caminho oposto, de estarmos sempre prontos para corrigir ou melhorar nossos pontos de vista e a contextualizá-los da maneira mais adequada. Pois, pelo caminho da irracionalidade, a tendência é de nos tornarmos mais dogmáticos, muito dependentes dos nossos arcabouços pessoais de crenças, ainda mais se apresentamos uma compreensão limitada sobre o que acreditamos.

Essa é a básica diferença entre construir uma cultura pessoal homogeneamente inteligente e uma cultura pessoal variavelmente inteligente. 

Ideology, philosophy/wisdom and the metaphor of manual and automatic

The more information we accumulate, the more automatic our reasoning patterns become, because, instead of continuing to look for answers, we start to use those that are already within our particular domains. Basically, it's about filling vague gaps in consciousness resulting from the evolution of human intelligence itself, making instincts more flexible, making it possible to fill these gaps with new information, in a more interesting, flexible way, but also more imprecise, uncertain... bonus and the burden of more complex intelligence. Then, maximizing the bonus, at least in the intellectual field, happens when our personal belief systems are solidly built from knowledge and analytical consideration. In other words, when our personal ideologies are solely philosophy or wisdom. The opposite of this, of maximizing burdens, at least in an intellectual field, is when they are predominantly based on other ideologies and not the only one that consists of the search for truth. So, a priori, it is naturally expected that our patterns of thought or reasoning become more automatic than manual as we accumulate more information. However, when our personal ideologies are or systematically become philosophy itself, it means that we are, in fact, accumulating knowledge, improving our understanding of the world, and actually increasing our intelligence (which appears to be independent of cognitive test scores). It also means that, despite the inevitable tendency to reduce the flexibility of reasoning patterns, in this way, we still keep them more flexible than if we followed the opposite path, of always being ready to correct or improve our points of view and to contextualize them in the most appropriate way. Because, along the path of irrationality, the tendency is to become more dogmatic, very dependent on own personal frameworks of beliefs, even more so if we have a limited understanding of what we believe.

This is the basic difference between building a homogeneously intelligent personal culture and a variably intelligent personal culture.

3 pontos para explicar similaridades geracionais e diferenças intergeracionais de comportamento /3 points to explain generational similarities and intergenerational differences in behavior

 1. Gerações tendem a expressar aspectos estruturais ou socioeconômicos de suas épocas

Então, se os jovens, atualmente, estão em maior risco de ficarem desempregados do que nos tempos de juventude das gerações mais velhas, não é apenas porque tem mais preguiçosos entre os jovens atuais, mas também ou especialmente por causa de uma maior estagnação econômica (entre outros fatores, tal como o aumento da automação), resultando em um déficit entre a oferta e a demanda de emprego...

Mesmo diferenças físicas, como de estatura e peso entre as gerações, também podem ser reflexos (nesse caso, cumulativos) de mudanças nas estruturas socioeconômicas, de quando tinha mais pobreza e desnutrição até quando passou a ter mais fartura.

2. Gerações expressam aspectos genéticos e fenotípicos correntes de suas populações 

Diferenças nos padrões seletivos e reprodutivos podem gerar mudanças na paisagem genética entre as gerações e mais notadamente entre as gerações mais distantes. Por exemplo, décadas com baixas taxas de fecundidade, grande aumento da natalidade tardia e da reprodução assortativa* (com base em similaridades fenotípicas do casal) podem causar um acúmulo progressivo de mutações de uma geração para a outra.

* Parcial e possivelmente associada a uma maior incidência de casos de autismo, por exemplo, no vale do Silício, região do estado da Califórnia, nos EUA, com grande concentração de engenheiros, cientistas e técnicos da computação mais propensos a estarem "dentro do espectro"

E como citado acima como parte reflexiva do estado dominante das estruturas socioeconômicas de uma geração, diferenças físicas também expressam o estado corrente de características fenotípicas da mesma, tal como a estatura e o peso. 

3. Gerações tendem a expressar aspectos culturais e psicológicos específicos às suas primeiras décadas de existência

A partir de suas tendências reativas mais comuns a esses aspectos, tal como por diferenças culturais de criação, por exemplo, das gerações mais antigas, em que o modelo era mais "tradicional" ou autoritário, e das gerações mais novas (atualmente, nesse início de século XXI), em que tem havido uma maior atenuação desse autoritarismo dos pais em relação aos seus filhos. 

Além disso, o que é universal à toda geração é uma ligação emotiva à cultura dominante de sua época, especialmente de seus "anos formativos', de infância e juventude, ainda que a força dessa ligação também dependa de outros fatores, tal como a compatibilidade de características intrínsecas, como a personalidade, com a cultura ou, subculturas de influência, no caso das tribos urbanas.  

1. Generations tend to express structural or socioeconomic aspects of their times

So, if young people today are at greater risk of becoming unemployed than in the youth in older times, it is not only because there are more lazy people among today's young people, but also or especially because of greater economic stagnation ( among other factors, such as increased automation), resulting in a deficit between job supply and demand...

Even physical differences, such as height and weight between generations, can also be reflections (in this case, cumulative) of changes in socioeconomic structures, from when there was more poverty and malnutrition to when there was more affluence.

2. Generations express current genetic and phenotypic aspects of their populations

Differences in selective and reproductive patterns can generate changes in the genetic landscape between generations and more notably between more distant generations. For example, decades with low fertility rates, a large increase in late births and assortative reproduction* (based on the couple's phenotypic similarities) can cause a progressive accumulation of mutations from one generation to the next.

* Partially and possibly associated with a higher incidence of autism cases, for example, in the Silicon Valley region of the state of California, in the USA, with a large concentration of engineers, scientists and computer technicians more likely to be "within the spectrum "

And as mentioned above as a reflective part of the dominant state of the socioeconomic structures of a generation, physical differences also express the current state of its phenotypic characteristics, such as height and weight.

3. Generations tend to express cultural and psychological aspects specific to their first decades of existence

Based on their more common reactive tendencies towards these aspects, such as cultural differences in upbringing, for example, of the older generations, in which the model was more "traditional" or authoritarian, and of the younger generations (currently, at the beginning 21st century), in which there has been a greater attenuation of this authoritarianism of parents towards their children.

Furthermore, what is universal to every generation is an emotional connection to the dominant culture of their time, especially their "formative years" of childhood and youth, although the strength of this connection also depends on other factors, such as compatibility of intrinsic characteristics, such as personality, with culture or, subcultures of influence, in the case of urban tribes.

The evolution of a species is the evolution of a matrix and the archaic-epigenetic variables that turn off the alternate reality sense of geniuses and wises

Genius among others (predominant) virtuosities tend to express himself fundamentally by their individuality.

The development of a species also constitutes development / enhancement of a mental centric culture, i.e., natural emphasizing / mechanically its own existential perspectives instead of reality itself or surrounding it. In other words, all species have a high latent inhibition when they met instinctively concentrated in their own natural way of life, interpreting the world in accordance with their respective  perceptive potential.

All forms of life have their respective matrix (instinctive cultures), ie the idiosyncratic and limited range of their minds regarding the perception of reality that surrounds us. Therefore, the evolution of a species reverberate both in the evolution of a matrix, secure, full of certainties retained its perceptive potential and not in relation to perceptual absolute, maximum degree of perception. And this process obviously tends to give firstly at collective level. That is, the macro-scale, even humans, all species evolve by this orchestrated manner as was visually exemplified above.

The human species is unique because of its extreme evolutionary capacity, comparatively speaking, that is, his intelligence. The defining characteristic / separates humanity is  amplified self consciousness, or delayed potential instinctive response. Between thinking and acting, we can reflect our thoughts and change our actions. But most of our species remains subdued by macroevolution or 'evolution of the masses''. We belong to the masses, we are their shape and their movement. We are, on average, hybrids with conscious and sub/inconscious will, which is not by reflective thought, but by instinct. In micro-scale experience, we, as individuals, are the bottom of the phenomenological hierarchy of evolution and / or adaptation. We received the sub / or unconsciously, all evolutionary guidelines, and this proves partially that the  complete free will is an illusion. We are overwhelmed. We are involuntary heirs, products, fruits. And we reflect with great realism our natural dispositions to mass behavior.

But not all humans are synchronized toward the anthropocentric world, our natural matrix, where perhaps many if not all human behavior can be predicted with great accuracy margin.

The sense of 'individuality', caused by changes of epigenetic nature, even during the formation of the fetus, or even, as in the conception of life, has a key role in many of the most powerful phenomena of the human mind, as the genius and wisdom.

Again with the held literary metaphor of the classic '' Brave New World '', where we can see represented clearly the differences between the more cognitively intelligent human types regarding those who are the most intellectually smart, respectively, the types '' alpha and beta '', and the perceptual / existential outliers.
The mental capacity of the alpha and beta types, is mainly cognitive nature, that is manifested based on the potential for seizing / learning tasks that are designed to support the civilizations where they live.

The mental capacity of outliers / perceptual existential outsiders, is based primarily on critical-analytical thinking or perception, relating closely with the wisdom, or the basis for all kinds of cognition that characterize human mental diversity.

Perceptive / existential outliers/outsiders, because of their epigenetic nature, is very likely to inherit various biological defects, which together with high capacity critical and analytical thinking, will make them more disconnected from the collective trance and orchestrated that is the human matrix, anthropocentrism, which diversifies in various cultural expressions wherever the human animal is living.

The filter of the reality of this type is virtually nonexistent, making him prolific in his ability to perceive truisms or trample details that go unnoticed by the common people and are often identified as' creative insight ''. They see the reality, in fact, while much of the people, including alpha and beta types, the most cognitively intelligent, tend to see personalized versions (which will be in accordance with its bio-cognitive class or subgroup) of reality .


The alternative sense of reality which produces all types of mass behavior, or behavior induced by bio-cognitive similarities, will disconnected in more wandering minds in all its organic composition, precisely because of these mutations more than make them transcend rule and be able to see it in a privileged perspective. The relationship between genius, among others virtuosity and mental disorders is significant, especially when we are dealing with existential-perceptual genius, because it is a burden, a lot to see, understand a lot more than others. Moreover, the essential / fundamental existential doubt, that terrifies us all, because whe are naturally aware of it, will be made even more realistic for most intellectually prodigious minds, with the place / common product melancholy.

The righteous are realistic, individual (and not necessarily individualistic), honest and / or sincere


... And most of his insights are derived from the fact that they can see as well. In other words, most human evolutionary transgression is not to lock himself inside a bio-cultural bubble centric, but precisely to burst any '' alternative reality '' and begin by observing and living on site all the phenomenology that involve ourselves, and submitting ourselves to your whims.

We all have mental or thought and action that will be constant patterns. As I've talked superficially in earlier texts, the reactions may be largely instinctive, emotional '' or '' rational (usually, we are mostly reactive hybrid, but will tend to be usually unilateral responses / emphasized for one of three types) .

Sincerity and honesty are not exactly the same thing, because while the sincerity manifests itself without the need for an empathetic approach, honesty will be made irreducibly through thinking about the other, the shared instinct / reflected (or life guard's instinct yourself and the next) and sophisticated.

However, the sincere will be more likely to understand the reality of what the honest, or one that has a disposition / natural / behavioral gift for this kind of reaction. The wise among other virtuous tend to be both.


A '' simple '' perception of reality can make you more creative and wise, realize that the '' simple '' act of begin by impersonal truth however balanced / harmonic way, it consists of a differential that qualitatively separates the spectrum of virtuosity and other human exceptionalities from collective / common landscape, orchestrated, predictable, binary and adaptively psychotic, those who despise reality / truth or can not understand it.