One of my biggest disappointments: "highly intelligent" people

They promise a lot and deliver little... Especially in emotional and rational terms.

My personal experience and my general impression of these people, who are recognized as highly intelligent by conventional criteria, have not been good. Because I've expected them to be more rational or sensible, creative, and emotionally intelligent. In short, according to the very concept of human intelligence, present in any dictionary. However, at least in my experience and also based on my observations of typically "high IQ" groups, what I've noticed is the opposite of what is expected of those who are socially considered the "most intelligent." If, instead of sensibility, I've perceived in them a strong attraction or vulnerability to ideological indoctrination, and this usually means an excessive attachment to irrational beliefs; Instead of creativity, I've noticed in them a tendency toward cognitive rigidity, as they seem more tacitly intolerant or incapable of dealing with dissenting opinions. Perhaps they lack a fully developed capacity for self-criticism, which isn't limited to a less than objective and impartial self-reflection and which, in turn, results in a constant appeal to rationalizing thoughts and actions, including their own mistakes. And, finally, a sense of a tendency toward coldness or emotional imbalance among them, that is, a limited capacity to understand personal or emotional contexts, of others and of themselves, which makes their social relationships more difficult. Ultimately, I've noticed in them (qualitative) variations of the same phenomenon: stupidity, which, in theory, one wouldn't expect to see more frequently in the group considered the "most intelligent." Scientists/academics, journalists, teachers, high-level artists...

Um truque comum entre indivíduos "de alto QI"/A common trick among "high IQ" individuals

Talvez o truque mais comum, é o de racionalizarem suas deficiências (comprovadas ou comprováveis) em outras facetas da inteligência humana, além das capacidades técnicas em que tendem a ser excelentes, nomeadamente de inteligência emocional e de racionalidade. Em outras palavras, de racionalizarem suas crenças irracionais e/ou julgamentos insensatos com explicações inteligentes, pelo uso de suas altas capacidades cognitivas quantitativas, especialmente as linguísticas, mas que os mantêm à margem de um desenvolvimento mais robusto de suas capacidades racionais e emocionais, ou capacidades qualitativas... Paradoxalmente falando, é o mesmo que usarem as capacidades cognitivas em que são mais inteligentes, mas contra outras capacidades, para continuarem menos inteligentes do que poderiam ser, inclusive em um sentido mais objetivo e decisivo de inteligência, que é a própria razão... Claro que tendem a fazer isso sem ter o pleno entendimento do que estão fazendo, de que estão se prejudicando intelectualmente, talvez um custo-benefício que, para eles, valha a pena, se costuma estar associado com a adaptação social especialmente em contextos humanos tipicamente dominados pela irracionalidade.

Perhaps the most common trick is to rationalize their deficiencies (proven or provable) in other facets of human intelligence, beyond the technical capabilities in which they tend to excel, namely emotional intelligence and rationality. In other words, rationalizing their irrational beliefs and/or senseless judgments with intelligent explanations, using their high quantitative cognitive capacities, especially linguistic ones, but which keep them on the margins of a more robust development of their rational and emotional capacities, or qualitative capacities... Paradoxically speaking, it's the same as using the cognitive capacities in which they are most intelligent, but against other capacities, to remain less intelligent than they could be, including in a more objective and decisive sense of intelligence, which is reason itself... Of course, they tend to do this without fully understanding what they are doing, that they are harming themselves intellectually, perhaps a cost-benefit that, for them, is worth it, if it is usually associated with social adaptation, especially in human contexts typically dominated by irrationality.

"Trump é ruim, mas Kamala é boa" (um teste específico de inteligência emocional/ingenuidade) /"Trump is bad, but Kamala is good" (a specific test of emotional intelligence/naivety)

 Que Donald Trump está longe de ser o melhor ser humano do mundo, isso é muito óbvio. Agora, que Kamala Harris também não se qualifica nessa categoria e, nesse sentido, se equipara a Trump, pode não tão ser evidente assim. De qualquer maneira, é perfeitamente possível compilar evidências de que essa mulher também não tem caráter (desprezando que, na atual conjuntura política dos EUA e do mundo ocidental, Trump acabaria caindo em uma posição política ou elegível de "menos pior" se comparado a ela), de que ela, tal como é típico de sua trupe ideológica, se passa de boa samaritana, defensora dos pobres e oprimidos, mas, na verdade, é uma hipócrita profissional, carreirista política dedicada (do tipo que já está há muitos anos mamando nas tetas do governo/estado americano), além de também não apresentar intelecto suficiente para administrar uma cidade, estado ou nação, se defende muitas políticas públicas claramente problemáticas que não se baseiam em evidências, fatos ou razão, que não resolvem, mas causam novos problemas, que são injustas... 

Portanto, é possível por esses dois analisar o nível de inteligência emocional e que também pode ser um teste específico de capacidade racional, de julgamento, em que julgar o caráter (personalidade, histórico, intencionalidade...) de Trump, um homem de negócios tipicamente ganancioso e egoísta, parece mais fácil do que fazê-lo com Kamala. Mas conseguir perceber o que está além das aparências é um teste mais robusto de inteligência, não apenas de inteligência emocional, e nesse teste, quem julga Kamala como muito melhor que Trump, ou até como uma pessoa conclusivamente de boa índole, está demonstrando ter um alto nível de ingenuidade, que talvez possa indicar um cenário pessoal mais generalizado, em que as aparências tendem a enganar mais frequentemente. É a diferença de apenas constatar o que se vê, com a necessidade de ter um maior esmero e ver, não o que se vê de primário ("eu sou a favor da solidariedade com imigrantes e refugiados"), mas no que não se revela em um primeiro olhar (fez sua carreira política com base no vitimismo identitário eleitoreiro do "vote em mim, porque sou uma mulher de cor" e as políticas que defende, mesmo se primariamente bem intencionadas, são radicais, extremistas ou imprudentes, como a de imigração em massa / são negacionistas quanto às evidências históricas e atuais do quão problemático pode ser o multiculturalismo; se baseiam em falácias morais e/ou chantagens emocionais, e por isso, causam transtornos ou problemas, especialmente para as classes menos abonadas. Então, é fácil ser a favor delas quando se vive longe dos problemas importados, quando se vive no privilégio, como essa Kamala, diga-se, sempre viveu). 

Como conclusão, se você só consegue detectar mal caráter quando está explícito, é provável que tenha uma inteligência emocional no nível de uma criança, subdesenvolvido ou precário, específico às capacidades de detecção de engano ou mentira e de julgamento de intenção ou índole...

Pois é a partir desse teste que também se percebe o quão entrelaçadas ambas a inteligência emocional e a racionalidade costumam estar.

 

That Donald Trump is far from being the best human being in the world is quite obvious. Now, that Kamala Harris also does not qualify in this category and, in this sense, is on par with Trump, may not be so obvious. In any case, it is perfectly possible to compile evidence that this woman also has no character (ignoring that, in the current political situation in the US and the Western world, Trump would end up falling into a political or elective position of "least worst" compared to her), that she, as is typical of her ideological troupe, pretends to be a good Samaritan, a defender of the poor and oppressed, but, in reality, is a professional hypocrite, a dedicated political careerist (the kind that has been sucking on the teat of the American government/state for many years), in addition to not having enough intellect to run a city, state or nation, and defending many clearly problematic public policies that are not based on evidence, facts or reason, that do not solve, but create new problems, that are unfair...

Therefore, it is possible for these two to analyze the level of emotional intelligence, which can also be a specific test of rational capacity, of judgment, in which to judge the character (personality, history, intentionality...) of Trump, a typically greedy businessman, seems easier than doing so with Kamala. But being able to see beyond appearances is a more robust test of intelligence, not just emotional intelligence, and on this test, anyone who judges Kamala as much better than Trump, or even as a conclusively good-natured person, is demonstrating a high level of naivety, which may indicate a more generalized personal scenario in which appearances tend to be more often deceiving. It's the difference between simply noting what you see, and the need to be more careful and see not what you see at first glance ("I'm in favor of solidarity with immigrants and refugees"), but what is not revealed at first glance (she built her political career based on the electoral identity victimhood of "vote for me because I'm a woman of color" and the policies she defends, even if primarily well-intentioned, are radical, extremist or reckless, such as mass immigration; they deny historical and current evidence of how problematic multiculturalism can be; they are based on moral fallacies and/or emotional blackmail, and therefore cause problems or disruptions, especially for the less well-off classes. So, it's easy to be in favor of them when you live far from imported problems, when you live in privilege, as Kamala, let's say, has always lived). In conclusion, if you can only detect bad character when it is explicit, it is likely that you have emotional intelligence at the level of a child, underdeveloped or precarious, specific to the abilities to detect deception or lies and to judge intention or nature...

Because it is from this test that we also realize how intertwined both emotional intelligence and rationality tend to be.

Qual é o seu Q.C? Ou o seu Q.R? Ou o seu Q.I.E?? E o Q.I.C do seu país??/What is your C.Q? Or your R.Q? Or your E.I.Q?? What about your country's C.I.Q.?

 Apenas testes de Q.I??

Porque os testes tradicionais de inteligência ou de Q.I não são abrangentes quanto à todas as facetas da inteligência humana, particularmente as "qualitativas": racionalidade, criatividade e inteligência emocional, eu estou propondo com esse texto ampliar sua capacidade de estimativa de potencial cognitivo justamente pela introdução dos testes faltantes. Então, também teríamos, além do quociente de inteligência, os quocientes de criatividade ou Q.C, de racionalidade ou Q.R e o de inteligência emocional ou Q.I.E. Ainda proponho por um quociente de inteligência coletiva ou Q.I.C, que se refere ao nível intelectual ou da cultura de uma cidade, região, estado ou país, não apenas com base em resultados de  testes de QI tradicionais e de outros testes de inteligência de suas populações, mas também pelos seus níveis social, econômico/ecológico, cultural e/ou filosófico (intelectual e moral). E até acho bem pertinente compara-los metaforicamente com o funcionamento de um organismo, se uma sociedade tende a funcionar exatamente desse jeito. Pois os resultados mais esperados até poderiam surpreender muita gente, já que existem, atualmente, muitos países de "primeiro mundo" que têm adotado políticas francamente insanas, tal como às de incentivo ao multiculturalismo ou imigração em massa sem controle ou razão que realmente as justifique. Já em relação aos demais testes propostos, eu também tenho uns aconselhamentos: quanto aos testes de Q.C ou quociente de criatividade, adotar os que têm sido criados para avaliá-la, como o de pensamento divergente, mais uma análise pessoal de realização criativa, isto é, se a pessoa que está sendo analisada já apresenta algum trabalho desta natureza, e de buscar avaliá-la de maneira objetiva; quanto ao Q.R ou quociente de racionalidade, a minha sugestão difere da que estou fazendo para o Q.C, porque não aconselho adotar os testes de racionalidade que têm sido feitos, se não acredito que seja a melhor maneira de avaliar o nível de racionalidade, de avaliá-la por meio de perguntas sobre situações hipotéticas e específicas, e sim que sejam criados "testes" que analisem o nível racional de um sistema de crenças individual, por ser mais abrangente, na minha opinião, se podemos saber mais sobre o quão racional ou sensata uma pessoa está por suas crenças, pelo quão embasadas ou baseadas em evidências, fatos, ponderação... (eu fiz um texto demonstrando como poderia ser esse teste: "Teste de racionalidade") ; e, por fim, em relação ao Q.I.E ou quociente de inteligência emocional, sugiro pela adoção dos testes que têm sido criados para analisá-la, mas também sugiro o uso de outros métodos, se parece existir uma mitologia em torno desse tipo de inteligência, se o ideal não seria construir testes que realmente analisem essa capacidade, primariamente de reconhecer emoções próprias e dos outros, mas também, controle emocional, nível de empatia..., até para não confundi-la com nível de ajustamento social ou com tipo de personalidade, o primeiro dependente de fatores que não estão sob pleno controle do indivíduo, incluindo o segundo fator, se a inteligência emocional não é um tipo de personalidade, mas também de como a abordamos. Ainda acrescentaria um teste ou uma avaliação do autoconhecimento, que considero uma das capacidades mais importantes que podemos apresentar e desenvolver, por ser muito influente em como compreendemos e usamos nossas capacidades.

Como aconteceria essa expansão?? 

Os novos testes poderiam ser avaliados tal como são avaliados os testes tradicionais de Q.I, e em conjunto aos mesmos, pelo estabelecimento de médias de desempenho que seriam somadas e divididas com o número de testes para encontrar a média final. Poderia ser assim ou, então, pelo desempenho de cada novo teste, seria adicionado pontos à média dos testes de QI tradicionais. Por exemplo, pontuações altas em Q.C, Q.R e Q.I.E acrescentariam até 20-30 pontos. Ou pontuações baixas tirariam até 20-30 pontos... Ou nada disso e, ao invés de tentar expandir a capacidade de abrangência dos testes de Q.I e usar apenas testes de capacidade como meios avaliativos, abraçarmos a ideia mais sensata de adotar uma avaliação completa do indivíduo, que incluiria os testes tradicionais de inteligência e que também poderia incluir os novos testes propostos, além dos de personalidade. 

Just IQ tests??

Because traditional intelligence or IQ tests are not comprehensive regarding all facets of human intelligence, particularly the "qualitative" ones: rationality, creativity and emotional intelligence, I am proposing with this text to expand its ability to estimate cognitive potential precisely by the introduction of missing tests. So, in addition to the intelligence quotient, we would also have the quotients of creativity or CQ., rationality or RQ. and emotional intelligence or EIQ. I still propose a collective intelligence quotient or CIQ, which refers to the intellectual or cultural level of a city, region, state or country, not just based on results from traditional IQ tests and other intelligence tests of their populations. , but also by their social, economic/ecological, cultural and/or philosophical (intellectual and moral) levels. And I even think it's very pertinent to compare them metaphorically with the functioning of an organism, if a society tends to function exactly that way. The most expected results could even surprise many people, since there are currently many "first world" countries that have adopted frankly insane policies, such as encouraging multiculturalism or mass immigration without control or reason that really justifies them. Regarding the other proposed tests, I also have some advice: regarding the CQ or creativity quotient test, adopt those that have been created to evaluate it, such as divergent thinking, plus a personal analysis of creative achievement, if the person being analyzed already presents some work of this nature, and seeks to evaluate it objectively; As for the RQ or rationality quotient, my suggestion differs from what I am making for the CQ, because I do not advise adopting the rationality tests that have been created, if I do not believe that it is the best way to evaluate the level of rationality, to evaluate it through questions about hypothetical and specific situations, but creating  tests that analyze the rational level of an individual belief system, as it is more comprehensive, in my opinion, if we can know more about how rational or sensible a person is based on their beliefs, how grounded or based on evidence, facts, consideration... (I wrote a text demonstrating what this test could be like: "Rationality test"); and, finally, in relation to the EIQ or emotional intelligence quotient, I suggest adopting the tests that have been created to analyze it, but I also suggest the use of other methods, if there seems to be a mythology around this type of intelligence, If the ideal would not be to build tests that really analyze this ability, primarily to recognize one's own emotions and those of others, but also, emotional control, level of empathy..., even so as not to confuse it with the level of social adjustment or type of personality, the first dependent on factors that are not under the individual's full control, including the second factor, whether emotional intelligence is not a personality type, but also on how we approach it. I would also add a test or assessment of self-knowledge, which I consider one of the most important capabilities we can present and develop, as it is very influential in how we understand and use our capabilities.

How would this expansion happen?

The new tests could be evaluated in the same way that traditional IQ tests are evaluated, and in conjunction with them, by establishing performance averages that would be added and divided with the number of tests to find the final average. It could be like this, or else, due to the performance of each new test, points would be added to the average of traditional IQ tests. For example, high scores in CQ, RQ and EIQ would add up to 20-30 points. Or low scores would take away up to 20-30 points... Or none of that and, instead of trying to expand the scope of IQ tests and using only ability tests as evaluation means, we embrace the more sensible idea of ​​adopting a complete assessment of the individual, which would include traditional intelligence tests and which could also include the new proposed tests, in addition to personality tests.

More voluntary provocations

 Kindness without rationality is not only stupidity but also insanity

The essence of kindness is still not being polite, as many seem to think, but being fair

Still, the kindest is the one who is the most altruistic and, at the same time, most fair. A rarity...

The rotten essence of capitalism is that anything goes for money

Conservatives love to blame the lack of religion in the Western world today for what they call "moral degeneration." But many of these cultural changes are the fault of capitalist ideological influence, particularly the greed to profit from any opportunity, including those considered the most "immoral"

Moral degeneration is not exclusive to the “left”. Centuries of traditionalist or conservative cultural hegemony, poverty, social inequalities, unfair prejudices, insane dominant ideologies and many wars do not let us lie

Are conservatives, on average, false collectivists?

If it is easy to say you are in favor of a society when its culture mirrors its way of thinking and living

The problem with living with people with low cognitive abilities is that they also tend to have low emotional intelligence.

And the problem with living with more intelligent people is that they also tend to have lower emotional intelligence compared to their cognitive abilities, but they are more implicit in this expression of disability than those with lower abilities, or more concealed.

Who defends an evildoer (objectively determined):

- Do you think you could be in the same situation as him, that you would act the same way (pure speculation)

- Thinks that we are all literally or absolutely equal and that he deserves to have the same rights (even after proving otherwise)

- And/or is equal to him

Much of the current policies of the so-called Western left are based on cheap emotional blackmail

Typically, the leftist looks for complex explanations for what is simpler, while the rightist looks for simple explanations for what is more complex.

Around every tyrant leader, there is a crowd of mercenaries and idiots

A typical way of relativizing basic concepts, such as truth and knowledge, is to produce unrealistic or extreme examples, such as "Sophie's Choice" situations.

Many understand emotional intelligence with empathy, control and charisma. But, emotional intelligence is also feeling sadness, anger or shyness at appropriate times or circumstances, sometimes long term or indefinitely.

Emotional intelligence can also be the option of distance

The most irrational tends to become more "nice" when they realize they are oppressed and the opposite when they realize they are more "empowered"

The most rational tends to become more fierce when they realize that they are objectively oppressed, but more moderate when they are in power (which, in adaptive terms, seems to be less logical)

Parents do not tend to like a child more because he appears to be more 'problematic' than the others, but just because they like him more, without having an explanation beyond that.

Parents who do not set adequate limits on their children are just as problematic as those who set too many limits.

Parents who do not notice conflicts between their children, especially conflicts that generate unfair treatment from one party to the other, are also not demonstrating excellence in this role.

In relation to knowledge about the most basic, true philosophy is sufficient, as it does not need science and its specialization of logic, its generalization is enough. For example, regarding religious belief, a legitimate philosopher does not need the scientific method to doubt its veracity.

The difference between the wisest and the most intelligent is such that it is comparable to the difference between two different species.

It is almost certain to say that the majority of self-declared philosophers are a combination of a failed artist (writer or poet) and a failed scientist, that is, they fail to be one or the other, in a genuine way, and end up becoming neither of the two. the two, rather than seeking to be exactly like a philosopher, a balanced combination between the emotional artist or the existentialist and the analytical scientist or the realist

When you write very well, you are capable, but also very likely to fill a large part of your writing with your disguised ego.

The belief that France is a great philosophical center is a likely symptom of pseudo-intellectualism

Cultural relativism and egalitarianism attract the most naive to the most perverse. But, generally, the most common type is a combination between the two, because every true fanatic is like this

As despicable as fanatics are false moderates

Self-declared left-wing or social justice individuals want to end all privileges, supposedly... But the only way to do so would be through the establishment of a fully meritocratic society, or an intellectocracy.

(my ideal way of society, the government of the wisest)

An exemplary profile of extreme irrationality is that of an individual who believes in God, Marx and Lamarck at the same time.

Believing that capitalism is an ideal model of meritocracy is another symptom

Ideological indoctrination (as opposed to education/philosophy) is a systematization of the fallacy of suppressed evidence

If collectivism is the sacrifice of the individual for the "good of society", is individualism the sacrifice of society for the "good of the individual"?

I have already said in other texts or thoughts that religion, like ideology, is a more intuitive form of self-therapy. However, I can also say that this self-therapy is a type of masking of the disorder that should be correctly treated. Such as, instead of telling a person with a psychotic disorder that their delusional thoughts are delusional, to agree with reality or part of reality that they have decided to distort to accommodate their personal issues divorced from the facts