Como que o pragmatismo ratifica fanatismo ou doutrinação/How does pragmatism reinforce fanaticism or indoctrination?

 É uma dinâmica bem simples em que a doutrinação ou o fanatismo, quando dominante dentro de um contexto individual, primeiro dita "o tom" de quais serão as crenças mais influentes na (deturpação de) percepção e também na tomada de decisão. E como o ser humano não foge à regra muito universal de comportamento de seres vivos, de agir pragmaticamente, ao tomar sua doutrinação como referência absoluta de realidade (que eu também já considerei como um sinal essencial de irracionalidade), passa a se direcionar objetivamente com base nela, muitas vezes, sem refletir as próprias ações...

It's a very simple dynamic where indoctrination or fanaticism, when dominant within an individual context, first dictates "the tone" of which beliefs will be most influential in (distorting) perception and also in decision-making. And since human beings don't escape the very universal rule of behavior of living beings—acting pragmatically—when they take their indoctrination as an absolute reference of reality (which I have also considered an essential sign of irrationality), they begin to objectively direct themselves based on it, often without reflecting on their own actions...

"Why wouldn't eugenics be possible?" Refuting AI

 I asked Google's Artificial Intelligence a question about an extremely controversial topic, eugenics, but one that is especially controversial from a "left-leaning" perspective. And as expected, it gave me the answer I imagined, which corroborates the "left-leaning" viewpoint, since AI is not a highly rational machine, created to be free from any human bias, and replicates the opinions and beliefs of its creators, even more so in relation to these so-called controversial topics.

I did this with the purpose of criticizing each part of its answer. Without further ado, I will try to show how misguided the "common/prevailing academic sense" is regarding eugenics, as reflected in an AI response...

"Eugenics is not viable to implement primarily for ethical, moral, and scientific reasons, and is widely rejected by the global community. It is based on pseudoscientific premises and violates the fundamental principles of human rights and the dignity of the human person."

First introductory excerpt from Google's Artificial Intelligence response (in Portuguese).

Let's see...

Eugenics is "widely rejected by the 'global community'," that's true. However, this rejection is the result of decades of heavy indoctrination or tacit brainwashing. It's not a natural convergence that a human majority arrived at on its own, without these dirty tactics of ideological submission, through emotional blackmail and/or social pressure, directing its judgment.

Still, I have no doubt that if this indoctrination is reversed in the future, the majority of this "global community" will return to believing in the viability of eugenics, whether they only reject it publicly or who "they" consider as the "global community"—the majority of human beings or majorities of specific groups?

We will see more about what these supposed pseudoscientific premises below...

And what violates "human rights." We will also see how misguided the ideology behind these "rights" can be...

"Ethical and Moral Unviability

Violates Human Rights: Historical eugenics has resulted in atrocities such as forced sterilizations, segregation, racial purity laws (such as the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany), and genocide. Such practices violate the right to life, liberty, and equality, as enshrined in global constitutions and codes of ethics, such as the Nuremberg Code."

"Historical freedom" is also associated with a lot of atrocities. Even the word "love." This is one of the main moral fallacies regarding eugenics, that it is absolutely immoral, as if an abstract word didn't need context to be moralized. And even when its concept is analyzed, it cannot be condemned.

"Atrocities" like forced sterilization...

As if every case of forced sterilization were a "crime against human rights"... As if EVERY human being with the absolute right to procreate is a "respect for human rights." But what if the individual has no capacity to care for their hypothetical or actual descendants, due to socioeconomic, but also cognitive, moral and/or psychiatric issues???

They exist and are not few.

And I'm not even commenting on the importance of biology and heredity in human behavior, which I will discuss further below....

Furthermore, it was thanks to a state-run birth control program that China did not experience a population explosion during the second half of the 20th century. Even if it wasn't carried out in the most ethical way, let's still imagine the human tragedy that would occur without this control, and which, incidentally, is about to happen on the poorest continent in the world, Africa...

"Segregation"

So, keeping individuals who commit crimes, especially heinous crimes, imprisoned is an atrocity against the human species??? Yes, because the imprisonment of individuals who commit crimes is a form of segregation...

Is segregation ALWAYS bad??

Don't we seek to segregate ourselves from others we dislike or perceive as incompatible with coexistence??

It doesn't have to be the act of isolating oneself spatially; one can isolate oneself emotionally, for example, even if the person is right next to you...

The same question I asked regarding eugenics, I ask here regarding segregation.

I've already written about this and shown that self-segregation, besides being very common, is the complete opposite of being against a human right...

"Racial purity and genocide"

Or would it be "racial purity = genocide"???

But if a human group wants to establish, maintain, or reinforce ethnic or racial endogamy behaviors, without this resulting in unequivocal oppression of other groups, is it infringing a human right?? So is the human right to freedom of association unethical??

As for genocide, well, "freedom" is ALSO historically associated with this cruelty.

Inciting and encouraging the extinction of a population through racial mixing and mass immigration to their countries (where they are the majority), isn't that a form of genocide? Isn't that what's happening to white European populations?

"Discrimination and Prejudice: Eugenic logic fosters racism, xenophobia, misogyny, LGBTphobia, and ableism by labeling certain characteristics or groups of people as "inferior" or "unfit."

Any logic can incite prejudice. But what is truly prejudice or exaggeration, untruth... and what is truth?

Saying that homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality is prejudice or truth?

I myself, a homobisexual man, agree that my sexuality is not ideal in evolutionary and collective terms, since one must be, at a minimum, bisexual to be part of a reproductively active population. I also agree that an "LGBT" minority is not problematic. But it's not possible to agree that the opposite wouldn't be either. The reasons are obvious, and this doesn't mean I want us to disappear from the radar. It doesn't mean I think my sexual orientation isn't ideal for me, because when I agree that it isn't, I'm not referring to myself or from an individual perspective.

But "eugenic logic" is not necessary to reach obvious conclusions. Impartial and objective observations and assessments are sufficient. Thus, it is not difficult to see that, for example, Down syndrome, however sympathetic and loving most of its bearers may be, is still a health condition that, in addition to affecting cognitive aspects, also impairs other aspects, making their lives more challenging, with higher risks of complications, such as premature death.

It is clear that, from a broader and more conclusive perspective of comparative observation, Down syndrome is an "inferior" condition. And this should not imply that its bearers are inferiorized if they are not at fault. Hence the importance of separating the condition from the bearer, especially in these cases. The same can be said, but in a slightly less conclusive way, about homosexuality, of being "inferior" mainly in relation to heterosexuality. Now, legitimate prejudice, especially in the sense of generalized dehumanization of groups, which this analysis can generate, is more the result of personal feelings of certain individuals, also These reflections stem from their contextualized personality traits and levels of moral discernment, rather than from a supposed sovereign "eugenic logic" over passions and thoughts. In other words, even if the concept of eugenics had never emerged, these people would continue to think this way. Indeed, long before eugenics emerged as a concept...

The same can be said about any other criterion cited for group comparison, such as race or ethnicity.

Furthermore, in recent decades, it has become possible to identify traits of Down syndrome in fetuses, which has resulted in the option of abortion in most cases where this service is offered or requested. Yet I am not seeing any significant pressure from the "global community opposed to eugenics" to inhibit or prohibit this practice... Is it really against it, or is it just in discourse?

It's funny that I, who definitely problematize this rejection of eugenics quite a bit, despite also knowing that it's complex to condemn it completely, was disgusted and fearful to learn that most of the identified fetuses... Pregnancies involving Down syndrome have been aborted. While I am not necessarily for or against any eugenic practice, I am particularly concerned that the practice could take this form. That is, that technology gives too much power to parents or progenitors, many of whom would lack the sound judgment to genetically shape their future children, especially according to their desires, in a scenario where genetic engineering becomes possible and accessible.

It is still complex to completely prohibit the abortion of a fetus based on the possibility of identifying traits of congenital disorders or conditions, such as Down syndrome. After all, it is also important to put oneself in the place of a father or mother and consider, in a situation of never having cared for a person with a disability that prevents them from leading a minimally independent life, whether they would be able to do so, knowing that it usually consumes a great deal of the caregiver's attention and time, and not only during childhood and adolescence...

Furthermore, I also consider as a possible ethical solution to this dilemma that the groups most interested in preserving a certain phenotype... They should engage in doing so, instead of trying to transfer certain responsibilities to those who demonstrate an inability to accept them. From there, the right of a couple or a pregnant woman to choose abortion would not be overridden, but the "risk" of extinction of a phenotype would also be reduced.

My greatest criticism/of this type of eugenics, which I have called "market eugenics," besides the potential to give excessive power to progenitors or parents regarding the possibility of shaping their future descendants, is also based on a scenario in which other categories of phenotypes that are more objectively or rationally undesirable remain present and reproductively available, such as antisocial personality disorders. Therefore, my strong impression of the mass abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome is that, however desirable it may be that this condition does not continue to appear in future generations, preventing the suffering of future carriers and their relatives, not seeking any means to prevent antisocial personality phenotypes from continuing to perpetuate themselves, even knowing their extremely negative historical legacy and their consequences in the present, seems more like a case of "social hygiene" and "aesthetics" than a genuine attempt to improve human society in an ethical and objective way. Even in the case of Down syndrome, I think that if eugenics were limited to certain aspects of human biology, those that are more morally problematic, especially those mentioned, conditions of this type could still be preserved. But the simple fact that most couples or pregnant mothers who have access to this service choose abortion shows that the anti-eugenic discourse seems to be more limited to certain anti-eugenic groups in "higher education" than to constitute a consensus of public opinion or the majority of human beings. What may complicate this majority's ability to reach a more consistent conclusion about the viability of eugenics is precisely the idea that it may not be fully applicable, primarily because of the discursive dominance of these anti-eugenic groups.

This situation also reveals or reinforces the reality of the hypocrisy, or ignorance, of anti-eugenic discourse, since it is an absolutely primal impulse in all of us to seek what we consider best, differing especially in how we define this "best," or in how subjective or objective our concepts and criteria are. But it is certain that this impulse permeates all our choices: from the fruit we choose at the supermarket to the type of partner we prefer and/or end up relating to, as well as the characteristics we would like our descendants (hypothetical or real) to possess, with eugenics being a thought or idea entirely derived from this same principle of preference for quality.

"Objectification of the Individual: Treats human beings as objects to be "improved" or discarded for the sake of a supposed arbitrary "collective good," ignoring the uniqueness and intrinsic value of each individual."

EACH individual

Would Adolf Hitler and Benjamin Netanyahu also fall under this "each individual" category? So, EVERY human individual, even those who commit heinous crimes, should be treated with the same respect for their rights as others???

"A supposed arbitrary collective good"

If mental traits are primarily and essentially¹ hereditary, including antisocial personality traits, and individuals who express them more consistently or intensely are the most likely to transmit them* to their descendants, wouldn't it be more appropriate to inhibit them from procreating?? And wouldn't that have positive consequences for collective well-being??

¹ excluding when they are acquired, such as through brain injury.

* Or also other categories of disorders.

Ah, no, because according to "AI," which believes in blank slate, it is not possible to predict irrationally antisocial tendencies in human individuals...

But wouldn't this ode to individualism be too radical and evolutionarily unrealistic?? Since every species evolves and adapts precisely through selective processes, that is, from a collective and not individual level...

I don't see how it's problematic to consider the "uniqueness of the individual" or of "life" and, at the same time, understand that a population needs to present a balance favorable to its adaptation and evolution, and this implies having control over it/its groups, subgroups and/or individuals. And if social and historical factors have been these control mechanisms, eugenics could represent, both in the most positive sense (balanced or rational, balanced...), and in the most negative, an advance without contenders for human autonomy over its own destiny...

"Opposition from Bioethics: The global bioethics community vehemently rejects eugenics, establishing codes of medical ethics that prohibit genetic manipulation for eugenic or discriminatory purposes."

The "global bioethics community" is basically one of the many SECTS of supposed experts who dominate a branch of science/philosophy to impose their deviant ideology precisely against the most important scientific and philosophical values.

"They prohibit genetic manipulation"

But abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome "is okay" for now...

"Scientific Unfeasibility

Pseudoscientific Basis: Original eugenics was developed based on a flawed and simplistic understanding of heredity and genetics, often distorting science to justify social and racial prejudices."

This was the understanding of what was known about genetics and heredity at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Whether it is flawed or simplistic was not considered so at the time. This is a typical prejudice of those who live in the present and accuse those who lived in the past of ignorance, even more so in relation to a branch of science that, at the time in question, was in its early stages. Furthermore, the understanding of many who claim to be against eugenics and who, in fact, make up the core of those who think of themselves and are also called "bioethicists" (by others ideologically related), embedded in universities, seems to me just as flawed and simplistic, because the eugenicists of the past, at least, did not deny the factual validity of the most basic aspects of the related topics, such as the predominant influence of biology or genetics on human development and behavior...

One genetic pattern that could, if not make eugenic practice unfeasible, at least make it more complex, is pleiotropy, which is a tendency, seemingly very common, for genes to mutually influence each other, organizing themselves as networks of proximity, where the selection of a particular set of genes (or phenotypic characteristics) can generate the unintentional selection of another set of genes. For example, selection for high cognitive ability can increase the phenotypic frequency of the autism spectrum. But this also does not mean that these unexpected (or predictable) effects cannot be controlled in a scenario of full eugenic practice. This is not negatively deterministic. In fact, more "natural" and/or random historical processes that could be considered variably eugenic, due to exhibiting patterns of selective and qualitative direction, seem to have occurred in human societies. For example, the probable increase in cognitive abilities of populations in countries like the United Kingdom**, over generations, Especially from the mercantilist period onwards, with the economic dominance of the bourgeois class and its exponential growth, that is, of the middle class, evidence primarily supported by the mortality differential between social classes (higher infant and general mortality among the poorest compared to other social groups, which would have resulted in this difference) that lasted for centuries and was accompanied by the sustained growth of the British population until the beginning of the 20th century.

Source: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/publications/workingpapers/2019/childlessness_celibacy_and_net_fertility_in_pre_industrial_england_the_middle_class_evolutionary_advantage/

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/100923/1/Childlessness_celibacy_and_net_fertility_in_pre_industrial_England.pdf

"To justify social/racial prejudices"

Even if there is some truth to this, it is always important to know how true a statement is: in this case, beyond what proponents of eugenics thought or think, in the search for the truth of the facts. For if it is true that there are upper-class individuals who have prejudices against lower-class individuals, it is also true that lower-class individuals, on average, have lower cognitive abilities and are disproportionately represented in crime statistics, as well as in psychiatric case statistics... The same can be said in relation to the prejudices of the most "racist".

Prejudice, in its purest sense, of pejorative generalization of a group, individual, country..., is always problematic, even more so when it does not reflect reality. But "white lies" used to convey supposed kindness or empathy are also not the most correct approach, and we are seeing very negative consequences as they leave the abstract realm of beautiful speeches and become public policies, political strategies, or consequences thereof. For example, the ongoing dysgenics, the opposite of eugenics, where traits considered negative, even more so if objectively considered, such as low cognitive ability, are under positive selection, and opposite, more desirable traits are under negative selection or exponentially reduced frequency. The ideal, therefore, and as usual, is balance, and in this context, it means not falling into the prejudice of generalizing about a group when it is not really possible to do so without being fallacious (especially when referring to a vaguely defined group, generally more diverse than in relation to more strictly defined groups). But also not falling into the other error of lying to "please," even more so when it comes to a truth that may be or sound offensive to certain groups.

"Genetic Complexity: Most human characteristics, including intelligence, personality, and even susceptibility to many diseases, is extremely complex and influenced by an intricate interaction of multiple genes and environmental factors, and not by a single 'master gene' that could be easily controlled."

EXTREMELY complex

Is it really??

But then why do couples of highly intelligent individuals have a greater chance of having highly intelligent children than couples of less intelligent individuals?? And the same pattern for less intelligent couples...

There are serious diseases that are hereditary, such as Huntington's disease, a very serious and incurable neurodegenerative disease. Would it be unethical to suggest or try to persuade people who test genetically positive for this disease to sterilized themselves??

Psychiatric illnesses also tend to have a high degree of heritability, although it is less significant than that of the disease above. Still, wouldn't it be better to suggest the same for these individuals?? Would it bring less risk of suffering into this world??

And you don't have to go far from health, because a Low cognitive ability, in general, although not a disease or disorder, tends to be associated with a series of problems of various kinds, even more so when the phenotype manifests at the population level and not just individually. This is the case for practically every very poor country, if it is not only a matter of having a corrupt political and economic "elite," going through crises of political instability, or having few natural resources, but also of its population having a lower collective potential of capabilities compared to other countries, and even if its social problems are direct reflections of its contextualized characteristics and not just historical contexts supposedly parallel to them. A very interesting example is the case of North Korea, which, despite being extremely poor, has produced scientific achievements at the level of an intermediate to rich country, probably because it has a high cognitive potential (similar to that of South Korea). And if we know that intelligence is also primarily determined by heredity...

In short, it's not that complex...

I've already written some good texts problematizing the criticism leveled against eugenics and how "surprisingly" beneficial it could be if applied ethically. I've suggested that, instead of a scenario where all individuals or families identified as having "a predominance of objectively undesirable traits" were forced to undergo sterilization, more targeted and persuasive measures should be adopted, including primary benefits for those selected, for example, offering many social and economic advantages as compensation both to those whose reproductive potential is limited and to those whose potential is encouraged, like a specific one-child policy, or a policy of up to two children in the first group and two or more children for the second, but seeking to discourage super-fertility for ecological reasons, and also for primarily logical reasons: the balance of population growth and size. And so, another myth about eugenics would be demonstrated in practice: that it could only be practiced in a radical or extreme way.

"Single gene"

"Even" AI, for now, "doesn't know" how the genetic structure of cognitive and psychological phenotypes is fully organized. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to me that most "eugenicists" believe that every genetic phenotype is governed by only one master gene. A typical prejudiced deduction of "anti-eugenicists" about "eugenicists"...

"Random Gene Pool": Random genetic variability (the gene pool) is crucial for the health and long-term survival of the human species. The attempt to eliminate this variability or to artificially select "superior characteristics" could, in fact, weaken human adaptability''.

But do all eugenicists, or most of them, think about eliminating a large part of human genetic diversity?

So, Huntington's disease and autism, especially autism levels 2 and 3, are fundamental to the variability and health of human populations?

But shouldn't the reduction of the number of white people to critical levels, and the same for those with high cognitive abilities of any kind, also be seen as problems related to the potentially harmful reduction of human genetic diversity?

"COULD"

So, eugenics basically means "significant reduction of genetic diversity"? Or is this "could" just loose speculation?

But wouldn't an excess of diversity also be good?

I could bet heavily, if I had enough money, that many of those who claim to be against any practice of eugenics are paying little or no attention to the real risk of..and the extinction of the "white race"... On the contrary, they are the ones most encouraging it... And who would problematize to the nth degree the reality of the primary and predominant heredity of human intelligence to justify that nothing is done to reverse certain dysgenic tendencies. Of course, they would say that "we are all equal in abilities" and that "a quality education is enough" in unison...

"In short, eugenics is an obsolete concept, scientifically unfounded and morally condemnable, which has led to historical crimes against humanity. Current genetic technology is focused on gene therapy to cure diseases, respecting dignity and individual rights, and not on mass selective practices."

"Obsolete"

Who determined its conceptual obsolescence??

So, the understanding that selective processes and heredity also represent an important part of the evolution of our species and that it would be interesting to seek to apply it at a social level is something that has completely remained in the past??

But if the "eugenicists" are more correct about their beliefs than the "anti-eugenicists," then won't the ongoing dysgenics in practically the whole world really be solved by the universalization of "quality education," and inevitably, in the future, will we have to resort to eugenic practices?

And isn't "freedom" a concept with a condemnable history and present? Should we then eradicate it from our vocabulary and then from our daily practice?

My individual right simply cannot override the collective well-being. In the same way that the collective cannot infringe on my right to have a minimum of personal autonomy. Because if I demonstrated any kind of chronic incapacity for minimally civilized behavior, even if this did not imply a hereditary potential, I still could not, ideally, form a family. Where is the dignity of the descendants I would bring into the world and not care for, or would do so in the worst way? The costs of highly dysfunctional individuals and... Many of their descendants, and I'm not just referring to those from the working class, have been very significant, not only in a financial sense, but also in an existential one. It is thanks to this idea of ​​compulsory autonomy for almost every human individual that, for example, individuals with antisocial personality disorders have generated offspring, perpetuated this phenotype across generations and, even more seriously, dominated nations and empires just to impose or reinforce oppressive systems, especially the most cunning ones where astuteness and an impulse for dominance are mutually related...

A curious fact is that, if it is not eugenics, or a more invasive control of human populations, a priori, aiming at their improvement or, at least, the maintenance of what is good in them, it will inevitably be Social Darwinism, or the absence of any control of this type resulting in a randomness of results, which is not just a matter of "the richest taking advantage of the rest," but in a more ecological sense: "the one most adapted to a certain environment reproducing more," and In our current context of social and civilizational decay, it is not the most intelligent or sensible who has brought the most children into the world, resulting in a scenario opposite to that of eugenics, which is dysgenics.

I always wonder if most of those who claim to be totally against eugenics, even if they don't agree with it or know about it, would be in favor of its opposite?

It doesn't seem to be just an impression, but exactly what they think, precisely because they believe in a series of genuinely pseudoscientific beliefs about these topics that have become politically dominant, which I have sarcastically called "pseudosciences of good" (biased to the "left").

**It has been shown above that studies have found reproductive patterns that particularly favored the middle class over other social classes, primarily in pre-industrial revolution United Kingdom, and that this may have produced a primarily eugenic pattern, if middle and upper-class individuals tend, on average, to exhibit higher cognitive abilities (their social status as partial reflections of this).**

Current "gene therapy," besides being based on the cruel sacrifice of many non-human lives, often without any objective result in the treatment or cure of diseases, can also be used precisely for what "bioethicists" fear most: the use of this emerging type of technology to fuel narcissism or validate low self-esteem in many people, in short, to be used as a capitalist service in which we become our own Frankensteins... If it is possible to promote greater control over the direction of the genetic and phenotypic quality of a population without this resulting in Lebensraum and holocausts, but also without the opposite, precisely what has been happening.In our "modernity" (or post-modernity)... And even the idea based on free association, where a group decides to preserve or even direct its traits, as long as they are not immorally explicit traits or phenotypes, such as psychopathy, can be carried out without infringing any rights, indeed, exercising a right that should be well ratified...

Conclusion

AI shows once again that it is just another tool created by "elite" groups to reinforce their beliefs and that these are also shady power plans (in full execution), instead of serving as a technological instrument for true education, philosophical praxis. As a result, instead of being as impartial and objective as possible in relation to this topic, as is supposedly expected of a machine created by humans to overcome their own bias, it only replicates the common sense imposed as absolute truth, which has had serious consequences.

One of the most common arguments used against any eugenic practice is that which confronts it with the ideology of human rights. However, this ideology is always based on an unrealistically ideal world, without considering human contexts from a more realistic perspective. For eugenics, if practiced in a genuinely ethical way, would function precisely as the most ideal measure for an intrinsically non-ideal world.

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...

Why does the "left" lie as much or more than the "right"?

 I was once a student at a Brazilian federal university. What's more, I studied at a humanities college between 2008 and 2014. I chose and passed the course that had been my passion, especially in my childhood: geography. I entered the course believing it would be more in line with how I learned to love geography: memorizing the names of capital cities, being curious to learn about other countries... But, from the first month of classes until the day I presented my final project, I was exposed to academic material absolutely biased to the "left" of the political-ideological spectrum. I could easily estimate around 90% bias, excluding technical and basic knowledge. The biggest problem isn't whether the bias is more to one side or the other, or even how much. But what it implies. And in the case of a "left-wing" bias, it has typically entailed the imposition of a majority of highly distorted narratives of reality, which are also dogmatic narratives, closed to intellectually honest criticism, and not fully based on evidence, facts, and/or rational consideration. Therefore, even if it isn't a priori a problem, it becomes one a posteriori, because of its meaning. I'm not against the application of critical thinking, unlike many on the "right." In fact, it's inevitable that a constantly updated human science pays the same attention to social critique as it does to its most basic knowledge. The most important thing is how well-founded this critique is. That's the big problem with the "left-wing" bias (as well as the "right-wing").

So, that was my experience at a university, and I don't know if I'll ever have the opportunity to be there again. But I'm not the only one who has noticed this situation, because everyone who attends or has attended knows, as I do, what's going on there. You know that, especially the faculties of the humanities and related fields, have long ago become a den of profound ideological indoctrination. But not everyone is honest about this. In fact, many lie, even blatantly, even denying that there is a scheme in place where those who demonstrate compatible ideological affinities are promoted within the academic hierarchy, and those who don't are persecuted or even eliminated from internal competition. This is without the criteria for compatibility being exclusively technical competence and full adherence to philosophical-scientific values. Of course, it is those on the "left" who lie the most about this, since they are the ones most interested in maintaining this state of affairs, whether to personally benefit themselves or, at least, in ensuring that academia continues to reiterate its ideological beliefs without the slightest self-criticism. The frequency and depth of this very problematic habit seems to be greater among them than among those on the other side of the polarization trenches. This must be because "left-wing" lies require greater elaboration than "right-wing" ones, given their comparatively more abstract nature, if this also requires a greater psychological effort to believe. But also because, despite the conservative "right" having a long history of embracing obscurantism and denialism, at least regarding some very basic facts about human nature, it has never denied them as profoundly as the "left" has. It has never denied differences between sexes, races, or other human groups, even if it has not developed these facts or has merely exaggerated them through generalization. So, this difference, which seems minor at first glance, is much more significant when we look more closely, precisely because it involves very basic facts that are primarily perceived instinctively and that are disproportionately influential in our lives. So much so that, with the cultural and political hegemony of the bourgeois-identitarian "left," entire nations under its yoke have begun to experience chronic social problems that threaten their very existence, not only as distinct cultures or ethnicities, but also in terms of civility. But there are also other likely factors that lead the "left" to lie, and more profoundly than the "right." Another factor is the great attraction that their ideas exert on individuals who exhibit deviations or disorders from the norm most consistent with the natural cycle of an organism's existence: procreation, survival... Moral, psychiatric, sexual disorders or deviations... Especially the identitarian "left" has embraced these congenital misfits, instead of doing as the traditional right has long done, condemning them for what they are. However, this "embrace" has occurred in a, let's say, excessively positive and, of course, with ulterior motives... In truth, the "left" would be more literally represented by this same mass of "mutants," as a reflection of its own nonconformist nature toward the "more natural" order. While it cannot be said that everything it defends is mistaken or untrue, it seeks to transcend this order, which is a kind of replica of a food chain embedded within human contexts, combating the social and moral problems it causes, without naturalizing them as much as the "right," itself, its greatest promoter, has done. But by treating it as intrinsically fallacious, which it is not, if it reflects innate and more general aspects of the behavior and relationships of living beings, it ends up causing more problems than it solves. For example, when it claims that the only reason for social differences between men and women is the historical and structural oppression of patriarchy over the latter group, completely disregarding their biological differences, including the mental differences between the sexes. Therefore, beyond the effort required for greater theoretical elaboration, it must constantly reinforce irrational or non-factual beliefs about these very basic facts, forcing it to delve deeper into the habit of lying than the "right." If the "left" accepted them for what they are and began to build its defense of social justice based on them, a significant portion of its denial of legitimate science would be eliminated, and then it would even be better for universities to have a significant bias on their side. But our reality is practically the opposite of this ideal...

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.

Sobre a nova "branca de neve" e uma velha suspeita/About the new "Snow White" and an old suspicion

 Por que empresas renomadas do cinema estão fazendo filmes ("remakes") que custam caro já sabendo que muito provavelmente serão fiascos de audiência?? 

Será que haveria uma razão subjacente?? Não apenas uma cruzada ideológica teimosa, mas também algo tão ou mais maquiavélico?? 

Então, eu comecei a pensar no que parece o mais óbvio que "certos" políticos ou grupos "de interesse" fazem quando querem aumentar seu poder sem que sejam perturbados pela opinião pública: o método da distração. De manipularem as pessoas para que prestem mais atenção a temas geralmente menos importantes, como um remake de filme da Disney, enquanto, na surdina, tais "grupos" maquinam a imposição de mais uma de suas perversidades. Ou também de simplesmente atiçarem ainda mais a polarização ideológica entre a população, que eles mesmos criaram e alimentam, e que funciona perfeitamente para manter o povo, isto é, as pessoas comuns, divididas, enquanto eles se mantêm unidos em seus objetivos totalitários...

Why are renowned film companies making expensive films ("remakes") knowing that they will most likely be box office flops??

Could there be an underlying reason?? Not just a stubborn ideological crusade, but also something equally or even more Machiavellian??

So, I started thinking about what seems to be the most obvious thing that "certain" politicians or "interest" groups do when they want to increase their power without being disturbed by public opinion: the method of distraction. By manipulating people so that they pay more attention to generally less important issues, such as a remake of a Disney film, while, in secret, such "groups" scheme to impose yet another of their perversities. Or simply by further stirring up the ideological polarization among the population, which they themselves created and feed, and which works perfectly to keep the people, that is, ordinary people, divided, while they remain united in their totalitarian goals...

Mais sobre o mesmo/More about the same

 Mais intensa é a doutrinação ideológica, menor é a autonomia do pensamento sobre o sentimento, de tal maneira que não seria exagerado chamá-la de doutrinação emocional 

A falácia, geralmente, é a expressão de um raciocínio desprovido de um esforço intelectual mínimo 

A esquerda é uma pretensão de complexidade e profundidade filosófica de pensamento. A direita é uma simplicidade autêntica porém excessiva, porque almeja a objetividade, mas acaba tão subjetiva quanto à esquerda. Revisitando o meu pensamento sobre as duas, em que a esquerda tende a expressar um pseudo intelectualismo (pretensão de inteligência/racionalidade) e a direita um anti intelectualismo (a negação da mesma...em prol de sua autenticidade)

O típico direitista se comporta exatamente como uma pessoa comum ou um "average Joey". Um típico esquerdista se comporta exatamente como um membro de seita 

Uma impressão pessoal: de que existe uma correlação positiva entre ser mulher e/ou estar dentro do espectro de minorias sexuais e de apresentar um grau crônico de analfabetismo científico e filosófico, resultando em uma correlação positiva de engajamento ou crença de muitos indivíduos dessas populações com pseudociências de todos os tipos: médicas, "do bem" (político-ideologicamente enviesadas à esquerda), até pela tendência de ambos serem mais emotivos ou movidos pelos seus sentimentos e, portanto, mais parciais e subjetivos do que imparciais e objetivos, características básicas para um bom cientista 

E sem falar de uma provável desproporção dos mesmos grupos entre "artistas' da "arte contemporânea" 

Politizados verdadeiros discutem mais sobre política. Pseudo-politizados discutem mais sobre políticos 

Enquanto as ficções humanas são meios para finalidades específicas e pragmáticas, como o conceito de justiça, realidades concretas e derivadas são fins em si mesmos, como uma pedra ou a água

Quando todos os políticos são corruptos, covardes ou tolos, as pessoas comuns deveriam tomar para si mesmas a responsabilidade de governo

A maioria dos jornalistas são meros propagandistas políticos 

Jornalistas, atores, políticos... Grupos muito semelhantes... 

A hipocrisia do tribalismo identitário é igual à hipocrisia de chamar de comunidade uma seita ou culto 

Identitários de "esquerda" e de "direita" se assemelham em demasia por suas autoestimas muito altas que resultam em uma autenticidade mórbida: desequilibrada ou distorcida. A maior diferença é que a autenticidade dos de direita é mais comum e alinhada ao ciclo de competição, reprodução e hierarquia social, mais alinhada à ordem "natural" ou típica...

Todo identitarismo é uma ideologia que se serve como um espelho de autenticidade àqueles que o adotam

Um exemplo de como o identitarismo burguês "de esquerda" finge que combate a desigualdade sem de fato fazê-lo: quando impõe sistemas de cotas raciais para profissões do setor público com os salários mais altos, como o de juiz, ao invés de combater as próprias diferenças salariais e de privilégio social entre as profissões, o cerne da desigualdade social 

O "branco de esquerda" que aceita ser responsabilizado por crimes que não cometeu só porque foram cometidos por "seus ancestrais' ou pelo governo do seu país, é tão trouxa quanto o evangélico que dá dinheiro ao pastor que se aproveita para enriquecer. 

O cidadão "de esquerda" que tolera o crime ou defende pela suavização da punição por crimes também está na mesma posição de alguém que naturaliza condições injustas e prejudiciais a si mesmo. Um pouco menos se ele for socialmente privilegiado e, portanto, mais protegido da bandidagem urbana...

Também pode ser possível comparar com pessoas comuns autodeclaradas de esquerda que apoiam correligionários que literalmente gozam de um alto padrão de vida e se limitam à "militâncias" discursivas como demonstração pública de apoio à políticas e ideias ditas esquerdistas. 

Defender pela suavização da punição por crimes também é uma maneira de defender pela opressão, com o aumento da insegurança, de quem vive nos mesmos bairros em que vive a maioria dos sujeitos cronicamente anti sociais, abundantes nas classes mais baixas ou basais.

Também é um verdadeiro privilégio social, não no bom sentido, defender por políticas públicas baseadas em ideias excessivamente abstratas à realidades constantes na dinâmica social, tal como às que se baseiam no negacionismo das diferenças intrínsecas de comportamento e inteligência entre indivíduos e grupos humanos. É fácil fazê-lo quando não tem que lidar com essas diferenças no cotidiano, como as variações mais extremas de inteligência emocional, empatia, racionalidade...

Brancos de origem europeia têm sido governados pelos menos sábios entre eles desde há muito tempo, a norma na maioria das comunidades e sociedades humanas. Pois, nessa primeira metade de século  XXI, em que uma tribo, originalmente do oriente médio, tomou o poder no mundo ocidental e está promovendo o seu genocídio lento e sofisticado para terminar esse processo de usurpação de poder, muitos deles se espantam por essa situação, como se não fosse totalmente previsível que uma civilização corrupta pudesse cair nas mãos de outras "elites" tão mal intencionadas quanto às anteriores

Em uma tragédia sem crime, a reação mais apropriada é a de lamento pela perda de vidas. Já no caso de uma tragédia a partir de uma ação criminosa, se exige uma reação primária de indignação, não apenas de lamento

A "esquerda' nega a existência de raças humanas ou de variações fenotípicas estatisticamente significativas (não apenas de traços físicos, mas também mentais e mais intrínsecos), isto é, de uma realidade biológica, enquanto considera o termo racismo, uma ficção humana ou abstração, uma verdade tão absoluta quanto à própria existência da espécie humana

Ter um excelente conhecimento geral ou cultural pode te fazer mais sofisticado e culto, mas não necessariamente mais sensato ou filosoficamente inteligente, ainda mais se a vocação filosófica sempre prioriza a qualidade sobre a quantidade

O único sistema de cotas justo é aquele que discrimina a favor de pessoas com deficiência

E ainda sobre sistemas de cotas, o mais do mesmo do que tenho dito, de que, não adianta implementá-los, se, além de não selecionarem por mérito de capacidade ou potencial, ainda continuarão funcionando como um método injusto de seleção de capacidades específicas a partir de avaliações excessivamente generalistas, que focam em conhecimentos gerais e memorização do que em conhecimentos específicos e práticos, o cerne do seu problema primário que o torna menos justo do que aparenta

O meu tipo de introvertido não é aquele que prefere ficar sozinho e sim aquele que gosta de ter seu espaço pessoal e/ou privacidade respeitados

Talvez uma diferença marcante entre um psicopata típico e um sociopata típico: em uma conversa, o psicopata escuta primeiro para saber o que falar, enquanto o sociopata está mais inclinado a não se importar com o que está dizendo 

Estúpido não é o mesmo que menos inteligente

O menos inteligente sabe ou compreende menos 

O mais estúpido não entende ou confunde mais 

A principal diferença entre eles é o nível de autoconsciência, especialmente em relação ao menos inteligente que não é categoricamente estúpido, em que o mais estúpido também é o menos autoconsciente, que não é igualmente condicional ao menos inteligente 

Pois parece que, enquanto existe uma abundância de menos inteligentes ou simplórios que se identificam com a direita no espectro político-ideológico corrente, como compensação, parece haver uma abundância de estúpidos categóricos que se identificam com a esquerda, típico de grupos de culto ou seita

Em termos evolutivos, o [mais]estúpido é todo aquele que adota uma estratégia de existência que o desvirtua em demasia da maneira mais original ou básica e eficiente de sobrevivência de sua espécie. Nesse sentido, então, parece mais verossímil definir como estúpido um típico "progressista" do que um típico "conservador"

No entanto, não é tão simples assim, já que o típico "progressista" tem demonstrado uma certa capacidade de sobrevivência individual em cenários específicos e importantes, justamente pela estratégia evolutiva mais adotada por humanos, a covardia, se pelo conformismo ideológico ou camuflagem social, pelo menos quanto à hegemonia de algumas de suas ideologias de aderência nessa primeira metade do século XXI, ou pela decisão de se esquivar de um envolvimento geralmente forçado em conflitos bélicos. Um porém a essa conclusão seria de que essa capacidade seria mais eficiente a curto do que a longo prazo

Não há nada que aborreça mais um indivíduo muito racional ou sensato do que um relativista da verdade.

Idiotas ou estúpidos arquetípicos que, tradicionalmente, se acham mais sensatos que os outros, são, frequentemente, atraídos por cultos de doutrinação ideológica, pois se apoiar em uma ideologia é a maneira mais fácil de aparentar inteligência ou conhecimento 

A manifestação mais básica e decisiva de inteligência é pela demonstração genuína de conhecimento, a priori, independente do quão amplo ou aprofundado possa estar, contanto que seja objetivo. E claro que, a partir de uma capacidade de aprofundamento, a demonstração de inteligência se faz ainda mais impressionante. É por isso que, talvez, muito daquilo que nos acostumamos a chamar por eufemismos, como a "cultura", na verdade, seja uma manifestação de inteligência ou estupidez, insensatez ou insensatez, a crença religiosa, por exemplo. A própria cultura poderia ser considerada uma espécie de sinônimo relativamente distante para inteligência, bem como para estupidez, se a cultura não se limita a rituais, roupas ou linguagens, mas também à qualidade intelectual e moral de suas crenças...

The more intense the ideological indoctrination, the less autonomy of thought over feeling, so much so that it would not be an exaggeration to call it emotional indoctrination

The fallacy is generally the expression of reasoning devoid of minimal intellectual effort

The left is a pretense of complexity and philosophical depth of thought. The right is an authentic but excessive simplicity, because it aims for objectivity, but ends up as subjective as the left. Revisiting my thoughts on both, in which the left tends to express a pseudo-intellectualism (pretense of intelligence/rationality) and the right an anti-intellectualism (the denial of the same... in favor of its authenticity)

The typical right-winger behaves exactly like an ordinary person or an "average Joey". A typical leftist behaves exactly like a member of a cult

A personal impression: that there is a positive correlation between being a woman and/or being within the spectrum of sexual minorities and presenting a chronic degree of scientific and philosophical illiteracy, resulting in a positive correlation of engagement or belief of many individuals from these populations with pseudosciences of all types: medical, "good" (politically and ideologically biased to the left), even due to the tendency of both to be more emotional or driven by their feelings and, therefore, more partial and subjective than impartial and objective, basic characteristics for a good scientist

And not to mention a probable disproportion of the same groups among "artists" of "contemporary art"

True politicized people discuss more about politics. Pseudo-politicized people discuss more about politicians

While human fictions are means to specific and pragmatic ends, such as the concept of justice, concrete and derived realities are ends in themselves, such as a stone or the water

When all politicians are corrupt, cowards or fools, ordinary people should take upon themselves the responsibility of government

Most journalists are mere political propagandists

Journalists, actors, politicians... Very similar groups...

The hypocrisy of identitarian tribalism is the same as the hypocrisy of calling a sect or cult a community

Identitarians of the "left" and "right" are too similar because of their very high self-esteem that results in a morbid authenticity: unbalanced or distorted. The biggest difference is that the authenticity of those on the right is more common and aligned with the cycle of competition, reproduction and social hierarchy, more aligned with the "natural" or typical order...

All identitarianism is an ideology that serves as a mirror of authenticity to those who adopt it

An example of how "left-wing" bourgeois identitarianism pretends to combat inequality without actually doing so: when it imposes racial quota systems for public sector professions with the highest salaries, such as that of judge, instead of combating the very differences in salary and social privilege between professions, the core of social inequality

The "left-wing white" who accepts being held responsible for crimes he did not commit just because they were committed by "his ancestors" or by the government of his country, is as foolish as the evangelical who gives money to the pastor who takes advantage of it to get rich.

The "left-wing" citizen who tolerates crime or advocates for the softening of punishment for crimes is also in the same position as someone who naturalizes unfair and harmful conditions to himself. A little less if he is socially privileged and, therefore, more protected from urban banditry...

It may also be possible to compare it with ordinary people who declare themselves to be left-wing who support fellow believers who literally enjoy a high standard of living and limit themselves to discursive "activism" as a public demonstration of support for so-called leftist policies and ideas.

Advocating for the softening of punishment for crimes is also a way of advocating for the oppression, with the increase in insecurity, of those who live in the same neighborhoods as the majority of chronically anti-social individuals, abundant in the lower or lower classes.

It is also a true social privilege, not in a good way, to advocate for public policies based on ideas that are excessively abstract from the constant realities of social dynamics, such as those based on the denial of intrinsic differences in behavior and intelligence between individuals and human groups. It's easy to do so when you don't have to deal with these differences in everyday life, such as the most extreme variations in emotional intelligence, empathy, rationality...

Whites of European origin have been ruled by the least wise among them for a long time, the norm in most human communities and societies. Well, in this first half of the 21st century, when a tribe, originally from the Middle East, has taken power in the Western world and is promoting its slow and sophisticated genocide

to end this process of usurpation of power, many of them are shocked by this situation, as if it were not completely predictable that a corrupt civilization could fall into the hands of other "elites" as ill-intentioned as the previous ones

In a tragedy without crime, the most appropriate reaction is to lament the loss of life. In the case of a tragedy resulting from a criminal act, a primary reaction of indignation is required, not just regret

The "left" denies the existence of human races or of statistically significant phenotypic variations (not only of physical traits, but also mental and more intrinsic ones), that is, of a biological reality, while considering the term racism, a human fiction or abstraction, a truth as absolute as the very existence of the human species

Having excellent general or cultural knowledge can make you more sophisticated and cultured, but not necessarily more sensible or philosophically intelligent, especially if the philosophical vocation always prioritizes quality over quantity

The only fair quota system is one that discriminates in favor of people with disabilities

And still about quota systems, more of the same of what I have been saying, that there is no point in implementing them, if, in addition to not selecting based on merit of capacity or potential, they will also continue to function as an unfair method of selecting specific capabilities based on excessively generalist evaluations, which focus on knowledge general and memorization than in specific and practical knowledge, the core of his primary problem that makes him less righteous than he seems

My type of introvert is not one who prefers to be alone but one who likes to have his personal space and/or privacy respected

Perhaps a striking difference between a typical psychopath and a typical sociopath: in a conversation, the psychopath listens first to know what to say, while the sociopath is more inclined to not care about what is being said

Stupid is not the same as less intelligent

The less intelligent knows or understands less

The more stupid does not understand or confuses more

The main difference between them is the level of self-awareness, especially in relation to the less intelligent who is not categorically stupid, in which the more stupid is also the less self-aware, which is not equally conditional to the less intelligent

For it seems that, while there is an abundance of less intelligent or simple-minded people who identify with the right in the current political-ideological spectrum, as compensation, there seems to be an abundance of categorical idiots who identify with the left, typical of cult or sect groups

In evolutionary terms, the [most] stupid is anyone who adopts a strategy of existence that distorts too much the most original or basic and efficient way of survival of their species. In this sense, then, it seems more plausible to define a typical "progressive" as stupid than a typical "conservative"

However, it is not that simple, since the typical "progressive" has demonstrated a certain capacity for individual survival in specific and important scenarios, precisely because of the evolutionary strategy most adopted by humans, cowardice, whether through ideological conformity or social camouflage, at least regarding the hegemony of some of their ideologies of adherence in this first half of the 21st century, or through the decision to avoid a generally forced involvement in armed conflicts. One drawback to this conclusion would be that this capacity would be more efficient in the short term than in the long term.

There is nothing that annoys a very rational or sensible individual more than a relativist of truth.

Archetypal idiots or stupid people who traditionally think they are more sensible than others are often attracted to cults of ideological indoctrination, because relying on an ideology is the easiest way to appear intelligent or knowledgeable.

The most basic and decisive manifestation of intelligence is through the genuine demonstration of knowledge, a priori, regardless of how broad or in-depth it may be, as long as it is objective. And of course, from a capacity for deepening, the demonstration of intelligence becomes even more impressive. This is perhaps why much of what we are accustomed to calling euphemistically, such as "culture", is in fact a manifestation of intelligence or stupidity, foolishness or insanity, religious belief, for example. Culture itself could be considered a kind of relatively distant synonym for intelligence as well as for stupidity, if culture is not limited to rituals, clothes or languages, but also to the intellectual and moral quality of its beliefs...

Um sinal primário e inequívoco de estupidez específica: literalizar generalizações/A primary and unmistakable sign of specific stupidity: literalizing generalizations

 Ainda mais as que são claramente inverídicas...

Tal como de dizer que todos os indivíduos de um grupo são culpados por crimes cometidos pelos seus antepassados ou por outros indivíduos só porque pertencem ao mesmo grupo. Um exemplo atual é a infame "culpa branca", a demonização generalizada de indivíduos de raça branca de origem europeia por crimes cometidos no passado colonialista e mesmo os que continuam a ser cometidos por indivíduos de raça branca na atualidade. Enfim, mais uma imprecisão grosseira dos fatos para fins ideologicamente doutrinários.

Even more so those that are clearly untrue...

As in saying that all individuals in a group are guilty of crimes committed by their ancestors or other individuals just because they belong to the same group. A current example is the infamous "white guilt", the widespread demonization of white individuals of European origin for crimes committed in the colonialist past and even those that continue to be committed by white individuals today. In short, another gross imprecision of the facts for ideologically indoctrinal purposes.

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).