"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...