More random slurs

 "Zero tolerance for criminals"

Typical conservative talk

I agree!!

But... What about criminals in suits and ties with lots of money?

The premature death of a "celebrity" may be regrettable, but it's also regrettable that there are people so socially and economically privileged, especially if they have the audacity to speak publicly about the supposed privileges of those far less privileged than themselves and how much they supposedly suffered while alive...

Even though prejudice based on identity or nature can be very painful, not having enough to eat or living in financial insecurity is an even more visceral suffering that hinders the fullness of life. Furthermore, a wealthy person who suffers negative discrimination can still compensate with their privileges...

The problem with mourning the death of a famous person is that, for most, it consists of mourning the loss of a person they never knew, who often left no objectively good social contributions, and who is also associated with offering condolences as a matter of privilege, making it clear that certain lives are supposedly more worthy of collective commotion than others...

The politically correct "left" confuses compassion with pity.

The "leftists" loves to justify his great intolerance of differing opinions with the rule of "not being tolerant of the intolerant..." but intolerance is much more justifiable when it comes to a fool, which is precisely what they tend to be...

An unmistakable trait of stupidity is the chronic inability to avoid generalizing groups. Precisely what "left-wing" (and also "right-wing") identitarians do most...

Regulated and restricted immigration is like drinking in moderation, and mass immigration is like alcoholism...

Many of those who most believe in and desire the application of eugenics, usually conservatives, if they truly understood what it would entail, especially if eugenics' main goal were to elevate human rationality, would fight to keep humanity as stupid as possible...

Besides the "pathological altruists" and those ignorant on the topic, among those who position themselves as completely opposed to any practice of eugenics, there are also those who have a personal interest in it, such as those with antisocial personality disorders... if they tend to prefer dysfunctional societies in which they disguise themselves better and consider them a perfect environment for adaptation, also in the sense of being successful...

Being in a problematic situation does not necessarily make an individual problematic. If there are problematic individuals who are in stable and peaceful life situations...

There are those who many consider "dead weight," primarily because they are supported or "carried" by others, or who present a more apparent relationship of unilateral dependence. But there's also the "living weight," the one who, even if they contribute financially or are not more dependent in a relationship, also contributes negatively, in other ways and/or not enough...

"It's important to respect the president because he's an authority"

Or

"It's important to respect an authority because he's an authority"

Redundant arguments like this are never sufficient for a truly philosophical analysis...

It's possible to hate groups without necessarily generalizing all the individuals who associate with them.

There are only three ways to develop sympathy for more objectively problematic groups (with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals):

Self-identification

Distance

Or a fanciful idealism

Sometimes, the best way to understand people's beliefs is

by seeking to know who they are.

Why do geniuses tend to be lonely?

For two main reasons:

1. Because, by becoming obsessed with their most interesting topics, they tend to become less interesting as social figures.

2. Because this intellectual obsession tends to shape their ways of seeing and relating to the world, constructing a unique existential perspective that is difficult for others to access or understand. While the ideal for socialization is for an individual's existential perspective to be as generic as possible, very easy to relate to and align with.

Every living being has its own beliefs, not just humans. Belief, in its most primitive sense, is an echo of confirmation based on what one feels, perceives, and experiences.

If creativity is intelligence and rationality is also intelligence, what is intelligence?

As if everything is God, what is God?

If "everything" is more of an abstraction than an absolute fact.

The problem isn't necessarily reading little, but thinking and understanding little. And, in this sense, there are many who are avid readers, but also have a deficient capacity for philosophical-scientific understanding... Just like those individuals excessively biased to one side of the political-ideological spectrum who are more ignorant than knowledgeable on a range of topics, even or especially those who appear to have specialized.

The problem, a priori, is not that the humanities are 99% ideologically biased to the left or right, but that the truths corresponding to them are not...

The same applies to the arts. It doesn't matter if they're biased to the left, center, or right, but what does that mean (bad taste, excessive politicization...)

The biggest differences between individuals with high (120 or higher) and low IQs (90 or lower): the ability to memorize and rationalize personal beliefs, even the most irrational ones

The biggest difference between the most rational and the least rational individuals: the ability to understand reality, which is the most critical to intelligence

"I am totally against discrimination and segregation."

Say those ''self righteous'' people who are always discriminating and segregating themselves in ideologically homogeneous spaces of more intimate coexistence...

Ideological fanaticism can be as serious as untreated schizophrenia, because the individual subjected to this condition begins to experience and interpret reality in a completely distorted way, always biased towards their delusional beliefs...

Genuine self-knowledge is scientific self-knowledge, which is also philosophical, which means knowing one's own potential and, therefore, one's own limits.

A classic example of ideological self-knowledge, in the worst sense of the term, means being unaware of one's own limits, believing one has infinite potential.

The safest way to self-knowledge is to begin with one's own limits, and then understand one's own potential, if these are determined by the former.

"We change all the time."

Self-knowledge requires the discipline of a trained self-observation so as not to make the kind of vague or imprecise deductions, like the one above.

No, we don't change all the time, literally. Most people don't change significantly in the long term. And the minority who exhibit more notable behavioral changes very likely already had underlying factors, inherent in their own nature. For if there is a first rule of behavior, it could well be this: no tendency emerges or expresses itself without a predisposition, just as there is no middle without a beginning. And the origin of our behaviors lies within ourselves, in our most innate mental traits, and not in the external "environment," so to speak, a collection of multiple factors given this abstract name, very similar to the idea of a whole, nothing more than a sum of factors confined to an arbitrarily determined space.

*Disregarding exceptional cases of brain injury or other mainly external factors that cause personality/mental changes

Attempts to universally extrapolate one's own experiences or life trajectories, as if they were possible examples in any other personal context, seem to tend to be based on seemingly less complex examples, especially in more challenging contexts. An example of a very common fallacy of thought...

The right to free association or self-segregation is also, especially, the right not to be forced to live with those who don't know how to live with them...

Claiming "anti-racist" these days (the 2020s) has progressively become an identification that expresses a lack of scientific and even moral (philosophical) understanding of related topics: race, behavior, society... rather than just a political-ideological inclination, much less a morally superior inclination, if the most fair judgment is never possible based on lies.

Just as, especially for a woman, who identifies as a feminist, has ceased to signify just a political position, much less a morally superior position, even by behaving like an inverted machismo, a widespread dehumanization of the male gender by many activist groups...

Still including within the fallacious term of "anti-racism" "anti-Semitism," anyone who is too biased to consider it in the way those most interested want it, as a thought crime, is as fanatical as those who passionately and uncritically declare themselves "anti-racists."

A person apparently endowed with high cognitive capacities who adopts "anti-racist" narratives, as well as other "identity" strands, is either suspected of doing so, perhaps benefiting from this position, or what is suspect is their rational level, that is, their epistemic level of rationality. But because it is tacitly irrational behavior, defending or relying on distortions of facts, what is already confirmed as a low level of instrumental rationality is not suspect...

Just as shame, if not more so.It's those fanatical individuals who clearly defend and/or rely on distortions of reality are the ones who act as apparent opponents of the fanaticism and influence of the first group. In both cases, the same question arises: are they more like madmen or cynics?

In absolute terms, no racial or ethnic group is superior to another, because no group is endowed with absolute uniformity of individuals, especially in terms of intellectual and moral behavior.

But in relative and historical terms, it is perfectly sensible to conclude that, yes, this hierarchy exists...

The paradox of labeling and moral behavior

The more you distance yourself from or condemn a label, the freer you feel to act in accordance with that same label, but through non-traditional or non-explicit means.

The same insufferable authoritarians who claim to be against any type of segregation are precisely those who most want to impose their unpleasant presence everywhere...

Every abstraction is arbitrary. A city, a concept, or a word. It's the same as giving form or limits to what doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist. It's the same as giving form and structure to the imagination.

A teacher's humanistic training doesn't mean they have to take on roles that aren't their primary competency, but rather that they at least master a minimum of legitimate knowledge about the sciences they deal with in their daily professional life. Therefore, ideally, teachers shouldn't be assigned other roles, such as that of psychologist/psychiatrist, but rather that they know how to psychologically and cognitively assess their students, so they can direct their teaching strategies. Or at least have a multidisciplinary team to support them.

Sobre a relação possivelmente complexa entre racionalidade e genialidade/On the possibly complex relationship between rationality and genius

 1. Conflito entre ponderação e genialidade 

Genialidade e racionalidade são ingredientes importantes para a construção e o avanço do conhecimento e, portanto, da ciência. No entanto, tendem a atuar de maneiras completamente opostas. A racionalidade como um guia para evitar saltos especulativos, se firmando nas hipóteses menos extraordinárias, especialmente quando se está buscando investigar sobre um tópico de interesse. Portanto, a racionalidade atua basicamente como um ímpeto que nos puxa para o realismo do que é factual, possível ou provável. E, para isso, nos incute o pensamento de não irmos muito longe de onde estamos. Já a genialidade segue uma linha de atuação bem diferente pois, como expressão máxima da criatividade e da originalidade, nos incita a especular de maneira mais solta, como uma abordagem mais ampla e arriscada, de tentativa e erro. Em resumo, a primeira nos faz mais comedidos, enquanto a outra nos faz mais ousados. Ambas, com as suas respectivas vantagens e desvantagens. Então, é possível concluir que o cientista genial é um indivíduo que consegue atingir um equilíbrio perfeito entre a ponderação ou razão e a genialidade, específico aos tópicos em que se aprofunda, já que, se ele se tornar ponderado demais, inibe sua capacidade de pensar além do bom senso estabelecido ou das hipóteses mais simples, e se ele for demasiado original em seu pensamento, aumenta o risco de perder sua capacidade de ponderá-lo, de discernir entre as hipóteses mais e menos logicamente plausíveis, especialmente as que soam interessantes em um primeiro olhar, mas deixam de fazê-lo a partir de um aprofundamento. 

Então, essa lógica também se aplica a todo indivíduo humano que não está diretamente associado à prática científica. Mas ainda é importante diferenciar racionalidade, ou bom senso aplicado, de conformidade ou senso comum, se a primeira se refere à busca pela verdade objetiva e imparcial e a segunda pela adoção de crenças estabelecidas e compartilhadas por uma maioria, dos que pertencem aos grupos sociais de identificação ou associação. 

2. A alta capacidade racional é um tipo heterodoxo de genialidade, praticamente uma genialidade da anti genialidade

Um indivíduo que atinge os níveis mais altos de racionalidade é um indivíduo intelectualmente excepcional, por se destacar da média típica de uma população humana, que, diga-se de passagem, pende à irracionalidade e não à razão. E, por causa dessa excepcionalidade, pode ser categorizado como um tipo genial, de excelência. Mas não um tipo necessariamente característico da genialidade, de profundidade de compreensão ou expressão e de originalidade de pensamento. Até pelo contrário, como um tipo que, em determinadas instâncias comparativas com a genialidade a nega em prol de uma excelência na percepção de fatos ou verdades e de se firmar neles, que, em teoria, é muito mais simples do que inventar, distorcer ou avançar muito profundamente sobre a compreensão da ou de uma realidade. Eu até já comentei sobre essa tendência de conflito que também parece existir entre racionalidade e inteligência, primariamente definida como capacidade de aprendizado, e analisada por testes cognitivos: de QI e desempenho acadêmico, especialmente, em que os mais inteligentes, nesse sentido, podem se sentir mais atraídos pela tentação de inventar ou distorcer fatos do que de apenas reconhecê-los e aceitá-los, ainda mais se forem fatos considerados pessoal e/ou ideologicamente inconvenientes. Por isso, a alta capacidade racional seria, ao mesmo tempo, uma excepcionalidade, por ser uma expressão rara da mente humana, mas também uma espécie de antítese relativa da genialidade, por ser um processo aparentemente mais simples, de percepção prioritária de fatos ou verdades objetivas, se o que a torna mais difícil não seria apenas uma questão de cognição ou percepção, mas também de capacidade psicológica, de autocontrole, aprendendo a evitar ou conter auto projeções durante processos de raciocínio, que tendem a priorizar expectativas e crenças pessoais sobre uma possibilidade de percepção mais imparcial.

 

1. Conflict between thoughtfulness and genius

Genius and rationality are important ingredients for the construction and advancement of knowledge and, therefore, of science. However, they tend to act in completely opposite ways. Rationality acts as a guide to avoid speculative leaps, relying on less extraordinary hypotheses, especially when seeking to investigate a topic of interest. Therefore, rationality basically acts as an impetus that pulls us towards the realism of what is factual, possible or probable. And, to do so, it instills in us the thought of not going too far from where we are. Genius, on the other hand, follows a very different line of action because, as the ultimate expression of creativity and originality, it encourages us to speculate more freely, as a broader and riskier approach, of trial and error. In short, the first makes us more measured, while the other makes us bolder. Both, with their respective advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that a brilliant scientist is an individual who manages to achieve a perfect balance between thoughtfulness or reason and genius, specific to the topics he delves into, since if he becomes too thoughtful, it inhibits his ability to think beyond established understanding or the simplest hypotheses, and if he is too original in his thinking, it increases the risk of losing his ability to ponder it, to discern between more and less logically plausible hypotheses, especially those that sound interesting at first glance, but cease to do so upon further investigation.

So, this logic also applies to every human individual who is not directly associated with scientific practice. But it is still important to differentiate rationality from conformity or common sense, if the former refers to the search for objective and impartial truth and the latter to the adoption of beliefs established and shared by a majority, of those who belong to the social groups of identification or association.

2. High rational capacity is a heterodox type of genius, practically a genius of anti-genius

An individual who reaches the highest levels of rationality is an intellectually exceptional individual, because he stands out from the typical average of a human population, which, by the way, tends towards irrationality and not reason. And, because of this exceptionality, he can be categorized as a type of genius, of excellence. But not a type necessarily characteristic of genius, of depth of understanding or expression and originality of thought. On the contrary, as a type that, in certain instances compared to genius, denies it in favor of an excellence in the perception of facts or truths and of establishing oneself in them, which, in theory, is much simpler than inventing, distorting or advancing too deeply into the understanding of a reality. I have already commented on this tendency for conflict that also seems to exist between rationality and intelligence, primarily defined as learning capacity, and analyzed by cognitive tests: IQ and academic performance, especially, in which the most intelligent, in this sense, may feel more attracted by the temptation to invent or distort facts than to simply recognize and accept them, even more so if they are facts considered personally and/or ideologically inconvenient. Therefore, high rational capacity would be, at the same time, an exception, for being a rare expression of the human mind, but also a kind of relative antithesis of genius, for being an apparently simpler process, of prioritizing perception of facts or objective truths, if what makes it more difficult would not be just a question of cognition or perception, but also of psychological capacity, of self-control, learning to avoid or contain self-projections during reasoning processes, which tend to prioritize personal expectations and beliefs over a possibility of more impartial perception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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