On two hard truths (or perhaps not) concerning—and directed at—teachers

 Especially for the left-wing activist-teacher, so common these days

1st: In the past—before the pedagogical dominance of "progressive" ideologies—being a teacher meant holding one of the most socially prestigious and valued professions; the teacher was regarded as the ultimate authority, typically enjoying the complete trust of parents. ...of society, in order to "discipline" and "educate" new generations...

It is not that I fully endorse how things were in the past... But the contrast with today is striking. There appears to be a clear link between this ideological dominance of the Left—manifested, firstly, through an ideology of parity between student and teacher (a "more modern" approach to instruction and classroom interaction) and, secondly, through the "ideology of the oppressed"—and the erosion of both the teacher’s authority and the formal, expected obligation to teach scientifically validated content while contributing to the transmission of more traditional values—among which, surprisingly, was the recognition of the teacher’s ultimate authority.

Second: The current, idealized (and exaggerated) image of the teacher as a morally superior professional, driven solely by a desire to teach, stands in stark contrast to the past—a time characterized by austerity and a respect rooted in the fear of the teacher’s authority.

In other words, even when teachers held great social prestige—reflected, for instance, in their salaries—it is a fact that many behaved in ways typical of human beings: when empowered, often displaying arrogance and abusing their power. Today, such empowerment occurs indirectly through ideological militancy—a far more symbolic form of empowerment, in which a teacher who engages in this activism perceives themselves as an agent of power, even though other, far more potent channels—such as the media—are already being used to serve the same doctrinal ends.

What is undeniably significant is the correlation between the ideological rise of the Left within the classroom and the decline of both the teacher’s authority and the prestige of the teaching profession. Yet, as is often the case with progressive public policies and influence, it seems quite clear that when a teacher’s authority is constantly challenged and equated with that of the student—a process that is further validated..by society, it is inevitable that the former becomes a devalued subject within this context...

Examining the dogma of racial equality in Brazil through data

What if the socioeconomic disparities between racial groups in Brazil are not merely or exclusively a matter of unequal opportunities, social exclusion, or "historical legacies"????

(And this is far from being the case only in Brazil...)

https://www.portaliede.com.br/estudo-do-iede-mostra-diferenca-de-desempenho-entre-alunos-brancos-e-pretos/

This is an interesting study showing that, across the entire country, racial disparities in academic performance remain consistent: as a group, self-identified white students achieved more satisfactory results¹ than self-identified Black students (a category that includes *pardos*—mixed-race individuals—in line with the "woke" trend adopted by many traditional Brazilian institutions: embracing bourgeois-leftist ideas, such as arbitrarily eliminating the *pardo*/mixed-race category and subsuming it into the Black racial category, perhaps to stoke antagonism toward self-identified whites)... It is also noteworthy that, despite extensive data and certain details² that merely replicate findings from studies in other countries³, the researchers' conclusion was strictly subservient to the totalitarian political correctness prevalent in higher education...

It is worth noting that these results confirm what has been consistently found in many previous studies. Therefore, this is not an isolated finding; rather, it aligns perfectly with the body of data and evidence accumulated on the subject—evidence robust enough to support a verdict that is, at the very least, partially conclusive. 

The data reveal not only a significant advantage held by one group over the other but also that, when social class is introduced as an additional comparative factor, this advantage becomes even more pronounced. They show that, starting from the same socioeconomic level, the higher-performing ("white") group maintains its lead over the other ("black") group; furthermore, individuals from the first group at a lower socioeconomic level perform similarly to those from the second group at a higher level. This finding contradicts one of the key tenets of "social theories" championed by academics ideologically aligned with the Left—namely, that social status has a direct, long-term impact on the prevalence of behaviors labeled "dysfunctional" or "deficient," such as poor academic performance. After all, if this factor were the sole or primary driver, "black" students from a higher social class should, on average, demonstrate academic performance equal to or better than that of "white" students at the same social level. Yet, the data show something else: "black" students in favorable socioeconomic circumstances perform—on average, or as a group—similarly to "white" students in less favorable socioeconomic circumstances...

So, what is the most realistic (objective and impartial) conclusion we can reach? 

...that the egalitarian leftist thesis—which attributes these differences exclusively to social, historical, or cultural factors while consistently denying biological or intrinsic ones—is fundamentally flawed... That perhaps the cause is not merely "structural racism," "oppression," or the "legacy of slavery," but rather that certain groups, on average, possess greater cognitive capabilities than others—regardless of whether ''one group' has a history of oppressing the other, and even if this unequal power dynamic actually reflects those very differences (much as humans judge other species based on their own superior intelligence). Furthermore, acknowledging this reality as it stands is neither immoral nor "racist," provided that scientific truth—empirical, impartial, and objective—takes precedence over moral postulates. Indeed, a system of morality can only be correctly constructed when based on evidence and facts; truth is the only possible way to systematize the practice of justice. For if we persist in believing that the only way to combat racial and social inequalities is through "historical reparations" and wealth redistribution—attributing the issues to abstractions—it is highly likely that, in the medium to long term, such measures will fail to definitively solve the problem of inequality and might even exacerbate it. After all, welfare-style measures for the poor typically overlook the fact that poverty is not merely a structural issue but also a cognitive and psychological one—and thus largely intractable through superficial interventions, such as providing perfect schooling conditions to students from lower socioeconomic strata, if their—on average—inferior performance is not solely or primarily due to their socioeconomic conditions or environments (especially given that there are students at the same social level who demonstrate excellent academic performance, not to mention the minority of "Black" students and/or those of......from the "lower class" who demonstrate performance levels satisfactorily similar to their "white" and/or "upper-class" peers...

# There are exceptions to this rule where a scientific truth does not always have to override a moral postulate. For instance, consider a hypothetical empirical finding that the majority of prisoners who commit heinous crimes possess excellent potential for rehabilitation... Even if science were to prove this, the morally just course of action is for them to remain imprisoned for many years, or even to face the harshest penalty of all: the death penalty.

- Take the example here, if it were discovered that a primary cause of racial disparities in socioeconomic indicators lies in psycho-cognitive differences between ethnic groups, using this as a justification to halt social measures aimed at combating extreme inequality would be problematic. This is especially true if the goal is not merely to promote meritocratic measures—rewarding the most capable—but also to avoid punishing those less capable in specific technical areas; if, in both cases, these differences do not simply reflect a matter of choice, then the punishment is literally unjust—much like curtailing women's physical freedom simply because they are, on average, physically weaker than men...

Beyond the moral factor involved—which need not rely on a religion appealing to metaphysical forces or an ideology that distorts "hard" facts to peddle "white lies"—it is perfectly possible, through wisdom or philosophy in its purest sense, to advocate for combating extreme inequalities based on the following arguments: the essentially fictitious nature of (financial) mathematics; and the essentially equal nature of all forms of life, highlighting first and foremost the essential equality of human life; ...and the essentially parasitic nature of an economic system in which one class exploits others for its own benefit—constituting a social system that is clearly contrary to meritocracy—it is only fair that those who keep society functioning at its very foundation also be granted sufficient rights and earnings to live with dignity, enjoying easy access to both material and non-material amenities...

* Whether it is truly a problem that group X shows average performance levels distinct from group Y, or if what matters most is whether these differences are causing serious social issues—such as racial disparities in the propensity for irrationally antisocial behavior...

Some details not shown in the primary study referenced here, nor in the secondary study used for corroboration (which demonstrates that these findings tend to be replicated in other countries using large, representative samples):

- If the "Black" category created by the IBGE—which lumps together those who self-identify as Black and those who self-identify as *pardo* (mixed-race/brown)—were broken down and the two groups reclassified into their own distinct categories, it is highly probable that the disparities in academic performance would be even greater. This is suggested by studies in other countries (such as the US and Europe) showing significant gaps between racial groups defined by less subjective criteria—like ancestry and phenotype—rather than mere self-identification. Furthermore, based on comparative results observed elsewhere (for instance, the performance gap between "Hispanics"—a predominantly mixed-race group—and "African Americans" in the US), it is likely that the *pardo* group would achieve better results than the Black group; - If the definition of "whiteness" in Brazil were not limited merely to self-identification, it is highly likely that Brazilians who are white by phenotype—and even by a predominance of European (or Caucasian) ancestry—would show an even better average academic performance than those classified solely by self-identification...

- If the categories of "East Asians," Jews, and people of Lebanese descent were used for comparison, it is highly likely that they would demonstrate superior performance compared to self-identified "whites" and the politically manipulated category of "Blacks"...

Therefore, the egalitarian—and pseudoscientific—belief that social and historical differences are always the primary cause of disparities between individuals and human groups, when accepted as scientific fact, can lead a city, state, or nation to adopt policies based on this misconception. This can trigger a chain of problematic consequences—as has indeed occurred, for instance, when a country decides to open its borders to mass immigration while disregarding the fact that human groups tend to exhibit cognitive and psychological differences that cannot be resolved through superficial measures, and that, in the medium to long term, this influx of "new residents" may exacerbate social problems, such as rising violence, cultural conflicts, and an exponential decline in average technical skill levels...of their ethnically "diverse" or altered populations... Beyond failing to eliminate poverty or extreme inequalities in the immigrants' countries of origin, it also complicates the host countries' capacity to absorb these migratory flows and affects their own social stability...

In Brazil's case, the adoption of education-focused measures—based on the belief that "education" works true miracles on the intelligence of individuals and groups, such as the idea that intelligence can be boosted simply through so-called "quality education"—ignores the fact that we possess intrinsic mental characteristics (such as cognitive abilities and personality traits) that are not merely reflections of the environments or circumstances in which we live and interact. Consequently, rather than accepting the reality of the Brazilian people's true cognitive potential (on average), measures that disregard this fact fail to solve the academic deficit—and may even exacerbate it. Realistically speaking, the only way to begin resolving this problem in the medium to long term involves not only fostering a culture that values ​​knowledge acquisition and high-level artistic achievement—something we currently lack—but also establishing mechanisms that are (and I apologize to those who might be easily upset by this) tacitly eugenic in nature: specifically, incentivizing high fertility among the "most intelligent" while disincentivizing it among the "least intelligent." As I have proposed elsewhere, this would entail offering advantages to those encouraged to have more children (though not an excessive number) and to those encouraged to have fewer (one or two). Other necessary measures include detoxifying the population from "anti-racist" or anti-white brainwashing by teaching people—especially those of European descent—that taking pride in one's own ethnicity is neither a crime nor a sin (provided this does not lead to generalized, unjust hatred toward other ethnicities). This approach would also serve to preserve the racial and existential integrity of the country's "most intelligent" groups, in addition to... encourage the "most intelligent" individuals from the "least intelligent" groups to marry one another and have more offspring. And frankly, I do not view any of this as an affront to true human rights... {I have also proposed elsewhere that, regarding the real risk of extinction for European ethnic groups, those who wish to preserve their physical and behavioral phenotypes should take the lead in this goal—defending the right to freedom of association—without needing to infringe upon the basic rights of those who lack this motivation}...

Demonstrating that racial or ethnic groups exhibit biological differences in behavior and intelligence does not mean that "true" racism must be normalized. Accepting a "harder" or "harsher" truth—one often obscured by hegemonic ideological conditioning—does not imply that one should act cruelly as a result. Clarifying a fact generally means expanding knowledge and awareness, not the opposite. Just as we can accept the reality of human races or ethnicities and their differences—recognizing that they are not merely reflections of culture or environment—we can also grasp a range of other truths that make this reality less "harsh." For instance, we can consider the complex nature of human intelligence, understanding that an individual who is "less intelligent" in certain areas may still be intelligent in others, or that being "less intelligent" in one regard does not mean they lack intelligence altogether. In our daily lives, we can see that human intelligence is not limited to writing "correctly" or solving math problems, even though these skills are very important... Accepting this fact does not mean we must generalize about groups, especially since these differences are primarily statistical. It does not mean these gaps cannot be narrowed, or that groups scoring lower on intelligence metrics cannot improve their performance over time. However, such genuine improvement will not come about simply by putting more books into schools in underprivileged areas...

Accepting that our mental traits are not entirely shaped by the environment—nor completely malleable through targeted stimuli—need not lead to a fatalistic determinism, where we believe we are doomed never to change or improve anything about ourselves. ...ourselves—not merely in terms of limitations, but also potential. Yet, this potential is shaped by our limitations—a fact that is not necessarily negative, given that it is better to know who we are and the extent of our reach than to deceive ourselves with illusions. This truth—regarding the primarily hereditary and intrinsic nature of our mental traits—could also prompt the school system, for instance, to rethink punishments for poor performance, without this implying a systematic disregard for academic achievement and......and to the social behavior of the student body. If science—in its actual practice and when contextualized regarding behavior and intelligence—inexorably leans toward the reality of biology’s predominance over these factors, then a teaching method truly based on empirical evidence must accept this. This need not diminish the teacher's importance, even though a shift in role is inevitable: moving from "builder" of others' intellects to instructor...

¹ ...figures show that across all Brazilian states—regardless of the subject assessed (Portuguese Language or Mathematics) or the grade level (5th or 9th grade of elementary/middle school)—there is a significant disparity in the percentage of white versus Black students achieving adequate learning levels.

In the 5th grade, regarding Portuguese Language, 65.1% of white students demonstrate adequate learning, whereas the figure for Black students is 40.3%. The states showing the widest gaps between the two groups are Amazonas, Rio Grande do Norte, Roraima, and Amapá. In Amazonas, even by the 5th grade, white students outperform Black students by nearly 100% (50.8% with adequate learning versus 25.5%).

In Mathematics, student performance is generally lower, yet the racial disparity persists: 55.8% of white students achieve adequate learning in the subject, compared to 31.2% of Black students. In Mathematics, in addition to Amazonas and Rio Grande do Norte, highly significant disparities appear in Rio Grande do Sul, Mato Grosso, Santa Catarina, and Paraíba. In these states, the gap between white and Black students exceeds 70%.

In the 9th grade, regarding Portuguese Language, white students outperform Black students by 68.2% (46% with adequate learning versus 27.4%). In Mathematics, the greatest disparity is observed at this stage: 25.8% of white students demonstrate adequate learning compared to 11.9% of Black students—a difference reaching 116.4%.

² In both years assessed and across both subjects, significant differences exist even when students belong to the same socioeconomic group: for instance, in Mathematics, among students of high socioeconomic status, 34.4% of white students demonstrate adequate learning, compared to 17.3% of Black students (a difference of 98.8%). Among those of low socioeconomic status, the figures are 15.8% versus 8% (a difference of 98%). ³ https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/prc/our-research/prc-research-brief-series/education-work-and-institutions/continuing-racial-disparities-in-academic-achievement.html

Translated

"Using data on children living with women included in the *National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979*, the authors present results regarding the math and reading performance of children aged 5–6, 9–10, and 13–14 over a 20-year period (1986–2005). The children were divided into six groups: Black, Hispanic, and White children from families with income at or below 100% of the federal poverty threshold (poor students), and Black, Hispanic, and White children from families with income above the poverty line (non-poor students).

Key Findings

Non-poor White children consistently outperformed non-poor Black and Hispanic students—from early childhood through high school, in both reading and math—between 1986 and 2005.

The academic performance gap between non-poor White students and non-poor Black students widened.

In contrast, the academic performance gap between non-poor White students and non-poor Hispanic students narrowed.

Furthermore, non-poor Black students performed worse than poor White students at almost all time points analyzed.

Similarly, poor White children consistently outperformed their poor Black and Hispanic peers—from early childhood through high school, in reading and math—over the 20-year period.

The performance gap between poor White students and their poor Black peers widened over time and appears to increase after early childhood.

The performance gap between poor White students and their peers" ...among poor Hispanics also persisted over time and increased among children of middle-school age (upper elementary/junior high years).

Poverty has a more detrimental effect on the academic performance of non-white children compared to their white peers.

Given that even white students from poor families outperform their poor Black and Hispanic peers, these findings suggest that the higher income—on average—of non-poor white families compared to non-poor Black and Hispanic families does not fully explain the racial/ethnic disparities in academic performance.

Educationalism versus Marketocracy

 Brazilian judges receive exorbitant salaries, in addition to enjoying other undue privileges, such as the famous "perks," and the privilege of being able to perform their profession very poorly without being exemplarily punished. The most recent examples in this year of 2026, of "leftist judges" using extremely subjective criteria to deliver their verdict: from the "LGBT and autistic judge" who ordered the arrest of a couple for 50 days for homeschooling their two daughters with exclusively erudite and religious culture, to the "feminist judge" who only condemned the stepfather who killed his girlfriend's, or wife's son,she, negligent and complicit, acquitting her because of "structural patriarchy"... Two great absurdities paid for with public money and which, until now, as I finish this text, have not received any adequate punishment. Believe me, it seems that many of those who claim to be "in favor of social justice" are not the ones who most criticize these privileges of the "elite" in the public service, and I believe there are two reasons to explain this great inconsistency. First, many of these self-proclaimed social justice warriors seek or aspire to be part of this same "elite." Therefore, it is a matter of simple and selfish self-interest, also in the sense of being able to exert power over the lives of others, as in the case of judges and lawyers. The second reason is that they believe, based on an educationalist belief, that "whoever studies more" deserves to receive a high salary, which is an absolutely meritorious matter... I only partially agree that those who "dedicate themselves" to "studying more" deserve to receive more, but not that they deserve to earn very high salaries that, moreover, come from taxpayer money. Before that, there is the merit of the professional quality provided, often falling short of what it should be in its ideal expression...

Right turn and marketocracy

So, if the left tends to remain silent about the privileges of the "elite" in public service (occasionally defending them), the right is not at all shy about defending the privileges of the economic "elite" or the "private service" (let's say), always defending the preservation or even expansion of their unfair economic advantages over the rest of the population, such as the right to the indiscriminate accumulation of money, without state intervention directing a portion of that money towards taxation, and the shameless exploitation of their employees' labor, with the belief or excuse that the generation of a country's wealth should always begin and be centralized at the top of the hierarchy: a kind of marketocracy, in which it is not the people but the mercantile "elite" and the business class who deserve to be served and favored first, also, it should be said, by The government itself, always leaving the working class in second place. In short, it over-naturalizes the incongruities of a system based on the fiction of financial mathematics, such as the absurd social inequalities of wealth and income (since money, in itself, is a symbol treated by convention as a naturalistically true reference of quantity)...

About Professor Girafales and the depressing reality of many teachers

 Intellectual and moral arrogance

Professor Girafales is one of the most beloved characters in the Mexican sitcom Chaves/El Chavo del Ocho, an intergenerational audience phenomenon in Brazil and other Latin American countries. Represented as a typical teacher dedicated to his profession, serious and empathetic with his students, Bolanhos also displayed less flattering traits generally associated with the "educating class," specifically the marked presence of a sense of intellectual and moral arrogance, as if working in education automatically conferred privileged intelligence and discernment, and not that, a priori, these were independent of how deeply embedded one is in a professional field, even one most intimately linked to knowledge. Because there are many times when Professor Girafales, or "Professor Sausage," makes unnecessarily derogatory comments, especially regarding the staintless Seu Madruga/Don-Ramon, because he is the character with the lowest level of education...

This complete portrait of a typical teacher, created for entertainment purposes, shows us what we can perceive in the real world from many of them: social charisma associated with an arrogant feeling of being more cultured and morally superior to others simply by practicing the profession and not by consistent evidence; a constant and fallacious appeal to authority, If the existing evidence actually corroborates an irregularity between expectation and reality in this context. For example, the expected expertise of professors in relation to their area of ​​specialization, which is not confirmed for many of them, especially those who dedicate themselves to "teaching" humanities, these literally taken over by a majority of pseudo-scientists, proto-scientists and pseudo-intellectuals, or false philosophers, because they are extremely biased to the "left" on the political-ideological spectrum and, therefore, very partial and subjective in their lines of reasoning... If what is also notorious among a disproportion of "educators," whether directly or indirectly related to their areas of activity, is the uncritical embrace of predominantly senseless ideologies because they are not based solely on evidence, facts and/or considered arguments, but rather, because they are primarily based on distortions of objective truth, resulting, for example, in the voting pattern of this class, very biased towards certain political parties, even when these demonstrate incompetence, corruptibility and senselessness at levels higher than the of their adversaries, in achieving this feat... This constant incongruity between many of those supposedly possessing greater wisdom and how they behave in decisive moments of public and democratic life, as well as how they position themselves in other situations, such as when they celebrate dictatorships and their dictators simply because they supposedly share the same ideologies they follow and believe in, while claiming to be totally in favor of democracy...

"Your vote is worth the same as theirs."

 And a major problem with this primarily logical and correct thinking

Among the many weaknesses of a modern democratic system is the equivalence of importance of the individual vote, in which people with disparate levels of intelligence, most directly reflected in levels of general and technical knowledge, but also and especially in capacity for moral discernment, have exactly the same voting power. In other words, the vote of a chronically ignorant or foolish person is worth the same as the vote of another person who is in a completely opposite intellectual situation. But this is not the most correct way, because there should be a way to correctly systematize these individual differences and establish a differentiation in the weight of the vote at decisive moments, such as in elections or plebiscites; after all, the opinions of those who develop them in a more rationally adequate way are worth more than those who do not. It's quite simple. It would be the fairest thing. This would be yet another mechanism to control the most natural fallacy of democracy, which can turn it into a dystopia I've termed "democracism," that is, systematically considering the "opinion of a majority" as the "most correct opinion."

But there's a potentially major problem that hinders the practical viability of this reasoning, which would be, in a realistic scenario, the criteria used by those in power and motivated to establish these changes...

What I mentioned above seems to me the most correct: to have the criterion of rationality or common sense as the most important, as it is the most logically relevant in this discussion. However, it seems common, at least to me, to see on social media those who criticize the established equalization of individual voting power either not considering this criterion or leaving it vague about what it would be... It also seems common for many, driven by educationalist beliefs, to point to the level of "education" achieved as the most important criterion in this hypothetical change. However, being more "educated," precisely in the sense of having more years of schooling or being at higher levels in the hierarchy of the educational system, is far from automatically reflecting an individual's level of common sense. And this seems to be the most common thought: if the equalization of individual voting power is to be ended, then it should be done between those with and without a degree. But this is not just my opinion or supposed prejudice against academia, because, in fact, among the "more educated," there is a significant portion that, to begin with, should not have been awarded degrees or should not have been awarded degrees in the areas in which they "specialized." And that's without even getting into the capacity for moral. discernment. And this is especially true in the humanities, dominated by cliques of pseudoscientists and/or pseudo-intellectuals extremely biased to the left on the political-ideological spectrum. Therefore, ideally speaking, if the end of the equalization of individual voting power were instituted, the most important thing would not be to give more weight to the vote of those who "studied more" because, in reality, often this "studying more" does not mean that the person has acquired more wisdom, quite the opposite... Returning to the conclusive redundancy of this text, the ideal would be, based on a generalized analysis of people's rational capacity, better reflected in values, beliefs, and behaviors in the medium and long term, that the establishment of unequal weight to the individual vote be based on this criterion and not on any other less precise criterion for evaluating the capacities specifically required in this context, such as the superficiality of a typical academic "education"...

But how would that work??

If I have demonstrated, over time, that I am more sensible, the weight of my vote should be worth... twice or more the weight of a vote from someone who proves to be quite reckless. However, another major problem with the practical viability of this change is that there simply isn't any social system for evaluating these abilities and applying them in real political contexts, because no one has ever really thought about creating something like that, due to the enormous popularity of myths about human morality and intelligence that continue to perpetuate themselves as absolute truths of common sense, such as the idea that everyone has the same potential for free will... As a result, before even thinking about establishing a disparity in individual voting power, it would be necessary to create a system that could evaluate the required abilities; in other words, literally to create a new evaluative and selective culture of merit, and I have already written about this, that this meritocracy proposal would also be ideal in any type of professional evaluation, since it is precisely the absence of a filter for rationality and, therefore, also moral discernment, that leads to many professionals of very poor quality..and acting in the most diverse branches of social life and causing all sorts of harm. But for this to become possible, the existing social system itself would first have to be in the hands of precisely the most rationally competent, an ideal scenario quite distant from our current reality.

The problem with Brazilian education, according to the "right wing"...

...is the imposition of the "socioconstructivist" model, from the left. A pseudoscientific model full of empty expressions and jargon, as is typical of pseudosciences, which opposes the traditional pedagogical model: emphasizing the memorization of information passed from teacher to student*. However, the problem with education, and not only in Brazil, is not just the model adopted, but that, on average, our population already presents cognitive limitations that are not reflections of personal experiences or social deficiencies, but of their own biology, of something that is practically determined at birth, of what one can achieve... Therefore, regardless of the model adopted, even if it may worsen the educational level, the cognitive limitations of the majority of the population, at least in relation to academic aspects, contribute massively to determining the potential proficiency that can be acquired. So, even if the software (the "education" model) is the best possible, it will still depend on the hardware (intrinsic or biological characteristics) that will continue to limit its results. A wonderful education model will not, miraculously, increase, for example, the average IQ of the Brazilian population, which is currently around 85 points, well below the Greenwich average of 100.

However, this is the misguided explanation that the so-called Brazilian "right" has decided to adopt, of course, exclusively blaming the influence of the "left" on education and completely disregarding these fundamental aspects, as they are also "controversial" or "polemical" nowadays. Yet another demonstration of how weak and submissive the "right" is in relation to the cultural hegemony of its antagonist in traditional institutions, since an "educativist" explanation (education for education's sake) has typically been adopted by the "left," even as a way to avoid a more objective and intellectually honest approach that would inevitably lead it to highlight these "fundamental aspects." However controversial, in short, it would force one to point to the "white elephant." For example, highlighting that Brazil has low academic performance because a significant portion of its population is composed of Afro-descendants (because they tend to have {on average} low cognitive abilities compared to other populations, such as European whites and East Asians of Asian descent), and all that litany of the "totalitarians of good" would come to the fore: "fascism," "scientific racism," "Nazism"... In short, a cowardly "right wing" submissive to the dominant "progressive" moral code...

* The socio-constructivist model, based mainly on Lev Vygotsky, proposes that learning occurs through social and cultural interaction (excerpt taken from an explanation of AI) and not through a previously established and universally ratified logical cognitive method as effective.

If I were a Brazilian public school teacher, I'd be feeling a particular rage toward the "left" lately...

 Because of "modern" pedagogy, compulsory "inclusion," and now, in 2025, with yet another "Greek gift," with the introduction of full-time classes in the country's public schools...

Because "modern" pedagogy has practically stripped teachers of any true authority over their students, and compulsory "inclusion" is forcing them to deal with students who require more specialized attention*, increasing their burden of responsibilities and daily challenges in their workplace, with the full-time model, they will have to spend more time in the school precisely to manage these and other problems that occur within a classroom, such as overcrowding...

* This after the so-called "well-intentioned" began attacking the very existence of "special schools", crucial in serving students with the most severe disabilities.

So, no matter how much higher the government might raise teachers' salaries in Brazil, with all these problems to manage, which are mainly the result of the "good intentions" of the "left" over the space of two to three decades, only a fanatical and/or ill-informed teacher would continue uncritically supporting so-called progressive ideas, beliefs, and/or parties, if it is precisely these who have most complicated their professional lives in a practical sense... But, apparently, these teachers "still" represent a likely majority... If they will continue to blame only the "right" for their ordeal...

And no, I'm not in favor of returning corporal punishment to students as a standard method of dealing with "misbehavior," as was the case in the past, or of there being no inclusion whatsoever for students with disabilities or special needs in "regular" schools. But, as always, I want there to be a minimum of balance in the decisions tied to public policies, made by those who hold that power. But that seems like a lot to ask.

The main difference between indoctrination and education

 The main difference between indoctrination and education

Is the factual nature of what is being transmitted...

Especially when lies, half-truths or distortions of facts, typically organized as dogmatic narratives, predominate or are already present from the very essence of a belief system, it is safe to classify it as very likely to serve as an ideological reference for indoctrination, and not for education.

That is why, affirming that God is a very possible logical improbability and that the class struggle is an empirical reality, are not examples of ideological indoctrination (the first, in fact, lacks any evidence, and the second is visible at any time in a typical human society), while denying them, are examples (on the "right") of indoctrination.

Any denial of a fact, especially a notorious fact that can be easily observed, or affirmation of an extraordinary phenomenon or event without any true evidence to corroborate it, are raw material for indoctrination.

Two other examples of indoctrination, and not education, but which are further "to the left" on the political-ideological spectrum are: the denial of the existence of more intrinsic differences in behavior and intelligence between individuals and human groups (observable and ratified by the perception of patterns of stability, predictability and heredity of behaviors), and the extraordinary assertion (a typical complement to the first) that the environment plays a much more important role in human behavior than our own nature or biology, as if we were merely reagents totally moldable by circumstances.

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

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

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

Anti e pseudo intelectualismos

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

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

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

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

 Primary logic and its relationship with anti and pseudo intellectualisms

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

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

Anti and pseudo intellectualism

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

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

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

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

Expectativa, realidade e o ideal sobre a educação/Expectation, reality and ideal about education

 Expectativa: de que a educação seja apenas uma transmissão de conhecimentos.

Realidade: de que a educação é uma transmissão apenas parcial de conhecimentos, porque também tem incluído doutrinação ideológica, especialmente em matérias das ciências humanas.

O ideal: a educação, enquanto prática da filosofia, consiste na transmissão de conhecimentos, incluindo o autoconhecimento, mas também no incentivo a gostar de aprender e até de se entreter com o conhecimento, de vê-lo como um fim em si mesmo e não apenas como um meio; e tão ou mais importante, no ensino do pensamento lógico-racional, isto é, a pensar de maneira mais sensata (não apenas sobre transmitir conhecimentos).  

Expectation, reality and ideal about education

Expectation: that education is just a transmission of knowledge.

Reality: that education is only a partial transmission of knowledge, because it has also included ideological indoctrination, especially in subjects of the human sciences.

The ideal: education, as a practice of philosophy, consists of transmitting knowledge, including self-knowledge, but also encouraging people to enjoy learning and even being entertained by knowledge, seeing it as an end in itself and not just as a means; and equally or more importantly, in teaching logical-rational thinking, that is, thinking more sensibly (not just about transmitting knowledge).

A verdadeira filosofia é a prática da verdadeira educação/True philosophy is the practice of true education

 A verdadeira filosofia é a prática da verdadeira educação

.. que é a busca e transmissão de conhecimento, sem qualquer viés ideológico, sem distorções ou omissões de fatos ou raciocínios mais ponderados, sem verdades ''inconvenientes'', enfim, sem qualquer doutrinação. E, para sua prática mais adequada, é necessário priorizar e sistematizar o pensamento lógico-racional ou imparcial-objetivo (e ético) para qualquer atividade intelectual, estudo, observação, experimento...

True philosophy is the practice of true education

.. which is the search and transmission of knowledge, without any ideological bias, without distortion or omission of facts or more considered reasoning, without ''inconvenient'' truths, in short, without any indoctrination. And, for its most appropriate practice, it is necessary to prioritize and systematize logical-rational or impartial-objective (and ethical) thinking for any intellectual activity, study, observation, experiment...