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).