On a question, multiple perspectives, and rationality

 Is Kim Jong Un right about anything?

This question might seem absurd, especially to large swaths of the political-ideological spectrum; given that he is a bloodthirsty and cruel dictator, one would expect him to be—conclusively—completely misguided regarding his beliefs, values, and life path. A rational analysis* of his moral standing inevitably leans toward a harsh judgment based on his conduct throughout his life. Yet, even if it isn't necessarily relevant to know *what* he is right about—whether in moral or factual terms—it is relevant to know that he *is* right about at least *something*. Because every human being is, even the cruelest or most insane among us. Even someone delirious in the street, in the grip of uncontrolled psychosis, or someone with a macabre track record of millions of indirect deaths—as is often the case with a cruel dictator. It remains rational to understand that even a truly ruthless individual, like the one in the example, will be right about something. It is possible to hold a definitive perspective on a specific individual, group, or ideology while simultaneously embracing other perspectives—such as the universal human insight that any member of our species who is even minimally cognitively functional, no matter how evil or insane, is still right about something. Or even the effort to examine in detail exactly what those correct points might be.

And this applies to groups or ideologies as well...

This is the difference between constantly seeking a definitive, binary perspective and seeking to broaden the range of perspectives on everything—without that addition nullifying or diminishing the importance of those views that are most relevant or significant to our judgment.

In short: even if Kim Jong Un might be right about something, he remains a villain with a great deal of blood on his hands. Or consider this: even if North Korea's dominant ideology is unequivocally despicable, there may still be—or indeed are—sensible aspects to it; for instance, the emphasis on the collective over the individual—the opposite of what currently prevails in the Western world... Yet, even in this regard, it is fair to note that this is positive only in a primary sense, since the collectivism typical of a totalitarian society like that one entails the individual's total submission to the collective... Thus, even a specific aspect or angle regarding a given ideology, society, or individual can harbor greater complexity or qualitative variation.

* Morality, viewed through a more objective lens, can be defined as everything categorized as "right," "negotiable," or "wrong"—primarily based on the needs of the specific individual or group. From a more universal perspective, however, it can be defined as whatever is essential or inevitable for an individual or group to practice in order to ensure their own survival. This definition excludes cases of organic or mental dysfunction where this logical rule is consistently violated—such as in antisocial personality disorder, where right and wrong are determined not by reasoned judgment but by its absence, leading to extreme or gratuitous cruelty driven by a sadistic desire to act in such a manner...

A highly relevant example with immense influence on the modern world is Nazism—and the typically extremist, binary criticism leveled against it and the various topics associated with it...

Is it always wrong? Everything it stood for, or everything it preached?

Loving one's own race or ethnicity—something it advocated—is not wrong. Emphasizing "good morals"—especially those that are objectively sound, such as a stable family structure—is not entirely wrong either. Even regarding certain beliefs of a more political and contextual nature—such as hatred toward the Jewish people—the error lay far more in overgeneralization than in being completely wrong (as the vast majority of "anti-Nazis" claim), as if centuries of persecution against this group lacked any logical basis rooted in their actions—particularly those of their political-economic "elites." And this need not lead to an extremist or binary conclusion—such as "if the Nazis weren't entirely wrong about the Jews, then they were entirely right"...

The multiple-perspective method—characteristic of a more rational approach—is essentially about learning to detect and understand nuances; this is precisely what is most lacking when, in a debate, X claims that XX is (completely) right and Y claims that it is (completely) wrong... It becomes yet another futile discussion that leads nowhere—or, if it does lead somewhere, it is to a place of ignorance and distortion rather than enlightenment.

We do not have to hate an entire people, but neither..we ought to worship it uncritically, especially if there is no reason to do so.

We do not have to hate our own race or ethnicity, nor hate other races or ethnicities. But neither do we have to embrace positive or negative extremes regarding our own or those of others.

If I choose X, it does not mean I must totally exclude Y.

It is possible to conclude that Kim Jong Un or Adolf Hitler are right about something—as every human being is—without that implying we worship them, even though we ought to detest them. And the same can be said of any ideology...

For what affects us most negatively, even today, is precisely these binary extremes masquerading as "normalcies," ​​taking turns in power and vying for territory, rather than being identified for what they are: indisputable manifestations of applied irrationality...

The true praxis of "not tolerating the intolerant": only when they are irrational

 Especially when dealing with issues, decisions, or situations that affect more than just a single individual, what is most objectively intolerable is not the "intolerant person"—since that label always requires context to be truly defined (and morally assessed). Rather, the most objectively intolerable figure is not merely a vaguely defined "intolerant" person, but the one who is most irrational: an individual or group driven by a predominance of beliefs, ideas, or thoughts that are factually erroneous—rooted in ignorance, fallacies, or lies. It is precisely *this* type that can place us—themselves included—at risk, being the least objectively intelligent and the most detached from reality; among the most dangerous. In fact, it is precisely *this* type—acting as a manipulated mass, and especially within the realm of governance—that has most often led humanity astray from its ideal path of philosophy.

So, among the many groups or sects of irrational people, which are the most dangerous? Here is a list of them:

Leftists

Die-hard capitalists

Religious fundamentalists

Nazis

Zionists

Leftists

The first group—or sect—listed here, which already holds sway over the Western world (especially in its identitarian-focused variant), is not only among the most deluded but also the most hypocritical. Hypocrisy is a despicable personality trait in which the habitual practitioner displays a systematic desire to dictate to others what to do or what is "right," all while failing to fully practice what they preach—or even doing the exact opposite. Although the "Left" does hold some sensible beliefs, these appear disjointed and isolated, or are overshadowed by an utterly excessive attachment to its own intellectual and moral narcissism. This results in an extremely rigid system of misconceptions—mistaken for absolute truths—that are widely disseminated across many disciplines, particularly the humanities, which have become their primary victims. A classic example of this profound ignorance is the pseudoscientific and pseudophilosophical belief in the dogma of human equality—the notion that human groups are far more alike than different because their distinctions are supposedly merely the product of cultural and historical factors. This erroneously relegates behavioral biology to an irrelevant role in the dynamics that constitute human nature regarding development and behavior—as if everything about us could be reduced to power and the oppression of one group by another. The results so far in the 2020s have been devastating; when these narratives take the form of public policy, they actively dismantle societies—for instance, through the imposition of multiculturalism or mass immigration. The aim is to put into practice the notion—treated as an established fact—that human races do not exist or that their intrinsic differences are negligible. This encourages indiscriminate mixing, ignoring the negative medium- and long-term consequences, which range from the disappearance of racial variation to a decline in the average intelligence of human populations. Furthermore, this specific policy rests on anti-racist fallacies—evident to anyone capable of impartial, intellectually honest thought—primarily through the hypocrisy of its double standards: groups such as whites of European descent are demonized, while others, such as blacks of sub-Saharan origin, are sanctified...

Moreover, when it is not the "colorful," degenerate wing of the Left seizing power, it is the more "hardline" version—equally problematic. Historically, its practice has always resulted in the imposition of a totalitarian regime demanding absolute submission to the socialist party, bringing with it persecution, genocide, and equality through poverty (except for the ruling classes)—ultimately perpetuating social or structural dysfunction rather than delivering the promised evolved, regenerated society...

Die-hard capitalists

Those who care more about profits than social well-being or the natural world are also completely unhinged—miles off the mark—and should not have unrestricted access to positions of power. Yet, as we live—or merely survive—in a capitalist idiocracy, precisely what should not be permitted is sanctioned by the legality of prevailing power structures... From the massive destruction of forests to the shameless perpetuation of social inequalities and poverty—alongside the excessive questioning of social welfare measures aimed at the most exploited or underserved classes, as if the poor were impoverished solely through their own fault—it is common that even the ""clean-cut poor person": hardworking and honest, yet unable to fully improve their socioeconomic situation based on the rules of the "system" because the system does not allow or facilitate it... Without wishing to claim the complete opposite—that every poor person is a victim of the system, which is not quite the truth—there are indeed other truths (albeit ones that are ideologically inconvenient, especially for the Left) that help complete the picture of why poverty persists in societies that are meritocratic to varying degrees...

Religious fundamentalists

Individuals excessively consumed by their faith in a God or in eternal life—and specific to a particular culture of belief—have shown throughout human history that they can be dangerous when they gain power. This is precisely because it is their habit to impose their beliefs on others, without concessions or respect for differences in thought and behavior—even those that do not compromise well-being or social order—and also because they aspire to a theocracy as their ideal system of government. They are uncompromising and totalitarian, but above all, predominantly irrational—as is typical of any sect composed largely of such fanatical types: the essence remains the same, only the content changes... And given such an extensive history—along with a persistent present reality in certain places—of societies normalizing atrocities in the name of faith or "God"—in short, given this accumulation of irrefutable evidence—they behave, especially when empowered, exactly like "intolerable, irrational, and intolerant" people... All this with the "icing on the cake" being that their beliefs are rooted in faith or blind belief rather than evidence; in an ideally rational society, while such beliefs might be tolerated, they should not be treated as irrefutable facts or educational mandates by the social system itself...

Nazis

In practice, contrary to what many people believe—especially in the Western world—Nazism was not entirely misguided. But as happens with almost every cult or sect, the Irrationality always prevails over rationality within their theory. For instance, the notion that hair, skin, and eye color signify absolute mental and organic superiority is a prime example of the pseudo-anthropology that was—and remains—central to their belief system; this system was fully implemented when the Nazis seized power in Germany and expanded it as they advanced into neighboring territories. The level of destruction wrought by historical Nazism—in both human and civilizational terms—far outweighed the social improvements the National Socialist Party brought to German society in the early 1930s, a society deeply scarred by the Great Depression. Should they return to power, it seems highly probable that the modern-day followers of Adolf Hitler and his cult would apply the same irrational and cruel logic practiced by their ideological forebears when they held sway. Treating individuals as if they were inextricably bound to their racial or ethnic groups—and doing so in an abjectly immoral manner—is certainly not the fairest or most correct course of action, objectively and factually speaking...

Zionists

Then we have the Nazis in Jewish—or sheep's—clothing: the Zionists. They appear disguised as blue-haired pseudo-sociologists or appearing respectable academics in Western universities, spewing their venom of so-called "empathy" and instilling self-flagellation in their historical "enemies"—white people of European descent—disorienting them into vanishing as distinct phenotypic and cultural ethnic groups. Meanwhile, they themselves—or at least their core—remain intact, united, and cohesive. They also peddle other poisons disguised as "science," "philosophy," or "culture"—such as the sweeping, unjust demonization of specific groups (white people, heterosexual men, Christians, etc.) orchestrated through traditional institutions dominated by them and their "agents"—and began slaughtering Palestinians, especially... ...after the attacks of October 2023 (people who were already suffering under the oppression of having their lands occupied and their political legitimacy denied by Israeli authorities—a denial corroborated by much of the Western world)—a situation not unlike what the Nazis did to their ancestors, condemning both the present and the future of a people who had the "audacity" to occupy the place that, two thousand years ago, was the "Promised Land" of the "Israelites"... A supposedly highly intelligent "tribe" that never learned from its own mistakes or those of others, and merely repeats the same litany of the "food chain" or "predator versus prey"—concepts that have long defined social structures and human relations under vague veneers like "culture" and "normality"... An "inverse" Nazism, sharing the same serious flaws in rationality and all that they entail: an ideology of racial or ethnic supremacy; a double moral standard—"everything for us, nothing for others"; the widespread and unjust demonization of vaguely defined groups; the imposition of exclusionary policies on "enemies"—in short, a systematization of cruelty or political sadism. It is exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews, but in reverse: now, it is *they*—in disguise—who (for several decades leading up to this year, 2026) are imposing the same injustices against "Aryans" and anyone else who stands as an obstacle to their totalitarian plans, such as the Palestinians...

What also leads people to believe in the pseudoscience of the blank slate?

 Especially those with high cognitive abilities, beyond the very irrationality* of presenting this belief?

What I've mentioned before in other texts: a self-projection or extrapolation of one's own personal situation, situational context, onto others' perspectives*, but also of more intrinsic aspects, such as cognitive abilities, as if what "works" or "worked" for them were also perfectly teachable to others, or at least to the majority. Basically, a confusion of personal perspective with universal perspective, in which a more innate ability to grasp information, rules, and/or techniques, coupled with a deficiency in self-knowledge, related to a deficiency in rational thought, leads some or many people, especially those with this high-capacity profile, to believe that what happens to them can also happen to others, that everything is simply a matter of will, effort, or persistence, and of "education"...

* Which is also a structural aspect of irrationality.

Another factor that often generates this confusion is belonging to a higher social class, as it can give the false impression that the personal challenges, especially financial ones, of individuals belonging to lower social classes can be as easily manageable as those belonging to higher classes, that everything depends on the individual's will or ability, completely disregarding unfavorable contexts. Ultimately, reinforcing and replicating the fallacious narrative of economic neoliberalism, which asserts individual responsibility as the only relevant factor in an individual's situation, delegating to the social context, little or no importance.

A prime example of typically irrational female behavior

The social contagion of plastic surgery with questionable results

Why get plastic surgery that makes you ugly or strange instead of "improving" your appearance?

Ask this to many women who have already had surgery or are considering going under the knife and getting a new, weird face. But it's probably just to follow the trends of certain niches, usually more "privileged," upper-middle-class women, "celebrities" (many of them very rich...). And, of course, this is very irrational. If it seems more common for women to fall for these counterproductive trends than men, well, that started a long time ago. Ever since they began to accept that piercing their ears or wearing high heels makes them more feminine, or at least more acceptable in their exclusively female social circles. All for the vanity of the moment, for the constant and ongoing conformity of the Venusians. But what about the Martians?

About an old discussion: who is more irrational, the left or the right, and a new thought

 What is more irrational, mediocrity or madness??

I have already written some texts based on this question in the title, more specifically two texts. In the first, I compared the left and the right based on the historical context of colonial Brazil and concluded that it is the right-wingers who are more inclined towards irrationality, not only because they are more likely to justify slavery, but also because they are more inclined towards religious belief, an extra and traditional dose of adherence to magical thinking. In the second text, I ended up concluding that the more rational ones would be more likely to not become so ideologically biased, contrasting an older text of mine, about highly rational individuals, in which I stated that they would be more likely to adopt progressive beliefs more vigorously, also based on the long history of embracing obscurantism by the other side, the right.

A new thought about this discussion, according to what I have been thinking, is that the comparison between those on the right and those on the left, in rational terms, is equivalent to the comparison between different doses of rationality, or rather, irrationality, in which the first group would be excessively restrained in their intellectual approaches, and therefore more conservative, expressing a more mediocre way of rational thinking, while the second would be excessive in its intellectual approaches, and that, without a quality filter of thoughts and ideas, becomes a more risky and mistaken way of rational thinking. Therefore, it is the clash between mediocrity and madness, between going too little beyond primary good sense, which is usually called "common sense", and going much further, but more in a sense of inverting it, reiterating the condition of the left, which has given itself, as an antithesis of the right, and not as a synthesis or a true moral and intellectual transcendence, as it seems to proclaim.

But this does not mean that right-wingers are, on average, less irrational than rational. It does mean that they are less irrational than left-wingers. Nor does it mean that conservative thought is perfectly cautious. Traditional religious belief alone shows us that this is far from true. (Still, it is interesting to think that, if from a thought I had about it, it is possible to consider it radical, in the sense of imprudent or hasty, and also conservative, depending on the perspective. If from a purely rational perspective, traditional religion, but also any other form of magical thinking, is tacitly an extraordinary statement without extraordinary evidence, a speculative leap without any logical basis, treated as absolute truth. And if from a historical-cognitive and evolutionary perspective, religious belief among humans would be the conservation of the universal and extremely basic modus operandi of living beings, self-centeredness, of primarily perceiving reality from one's own perspective, instead of doing so in a more objective way, shifting perception to the objective instead of self-projection).

A irracionalidade crônica é um tipo de deficiência ou "retardo" mental.../Chronic irrationality is a type of mental deficiency or "retardation"...

 ... variável e ou teoricamente reversível 

E que, diga-se, manifesta-se muito comumente na única espécie que poderia apresentá-la, a única que também pode ser racional. 

Pois se uma pessoa tipicamente deficiente apresenta uma série de incapacidades mentais, elemento determinante para o conceito de deficiência intelectual, o mesmo pode ser aplicado à irracionalidade, com a diferença de que a mesma se expressa em relação às faculdades superiores da mente humana, especialmente o pensamento abstrato, o controle emocional e a consequente capacidade de discernimento factual (do subjetivo ou pessoal/ que se desdobra para o discernimento moral), enquanto a típica deficiência intelectual se expressa pelo comprometimento de faculdades mentais inferiores, no sentido de básicas, como a comunicação, a locomoção e a capacidade de raciocínio simples. 

... variable and/or theoretically reversible

And which, it must be said, manifests itself very commonly in the only species that could present it, the only one that can also be rational.

For if a typically disabled person presents a series of mental incapacities, a determining element for the concept of intellectual disability, the same can be applied to irrationality, with the difference that it is expressed in relation to the superior faculties of the human mind, especially abstract thought, emotional control and the consequent capacity for factual discernment (of the subjective or personal/which unfolds into moral discernment), while the typical intellectual disability is expressed by the impairment of inferior mental faculties, in the sense of basic ones, such as communication, locomotion and the capacity for simple reasoning.

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

 1. Conflito entre ponderação e genialidade 

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

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

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

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

 

1. Conflict between thoughtfulness and genius

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

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

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

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

A relação entre baixa autoconsciência/autoconhecimento, fanatismo ideológico, narcisismo e irracionalidade/The relationship between low self-awareness/self-knowledge, ideological fanaticism, narcissism and irrationality

 Quem se conhece pouco ou muito superficialmente, por extrapolação lógica, também compreende menos a realidade ao seu redor. Então, como recurso intuitivo e muito impreciso de orientação, está mais propenso a apelar para as ideologias e, nesse processo, acabar sofrendo doutrinação ideológica ou lavagem cerebral...

Quem se conhece pouco ou muito superficialmente também é pouco introspectivo, menos propenso a pensar sobre si mesmo, inclusive em um sentido autocrítico. E isso é provável que o torne atraído ao apelo de narrativas ideológicas que também estão pessoalmente enviesadas...

Quem se conhece pouco ou insuficiente também conhece pouco sobre os próprios limites e potenciais, e isso aumenta em demasia o risco de que  confunda sua própria perspectiva com a perspectiva do mundo, isto é, suas crenças ou expectativas pessoais com fatos...

Quem se conhece ou se entende pouco também está mais propenso a super ou subestimar suas capacidades, inclusive a racional, de julgamento factual e moral, e então a adotar postulados ideológicos, mesmo se forem baseados em distorções de fatos, falácias... tratando-os como verdades incontestáveis, desde que confirmem suas crenças pessoais... 

Quem se conhece ou se entende pouco está menos propenso a prestar atenção em si mesmo, em seus próprios pensamentos e sentimentos, e então a entrar em contradição com mais frequência. Ou também pode ser demasiado egocêntrico e a prestar muita atenção em si mesmo, mas especialmente em sua auto imagem distorcida, que faz pouca diferença em termos de auto compreensão...

Aquele que se conhece ou se entende pouco está mais propenso a ser narcisista, especialmente se superestima a si próprio. Então, está mais propenso a adotar apenas as crenças ideológicas que estão de acordo com os seus sentimentos, pensamentos, personalidade, circunstâncias pessoais... enfim, que reforçam seu egocentrismo, sua interpretação pessoalmente enviesada da realidade (ou super personalização/ irracionalidade) ao invés de buscar amadurecer intelectualmente para aceitar e lidar com os fatos tal como se apresentam...

Mas um baixo autoconhecimento também pode se manifestar pela síndrome do impostor tornando um indivíduo mais vulnerável a adotar crenças ideológicas de maneira acrítica, não necessariamente ou apenas porque reforçam suas crenças pessoais, mas também como maneira de mascarar sua auto percepção real ou exagerada de incapacidade de pensamento lógico-racional. E no caso de ser uma incapacidade verdadeira, se alinha mais ao caso de narcisismo, de super autoestima, do que de sub autoestima.

Those who know little about themselves or very superficially, through logical extrapolation, also understand less the reality around them. Therefore, as an intuitive and very imprecise resource for guidance, they are more likely to appeal to ideologies and, in the process, end up suffering ideological indoctrination or brainwashing...

Those who know little about themselves or very superficially are also not very introspective, less likely to think about themselves, including in a self-critical sense. And this is likely to make them attracted to the appeal of ideological narratives that are also personally biased...

Those who know little about themselves or insufficiently also know little about their own limits and potentials, and this greatly increases the risk that they will confuse their own perspective with the perspective of the world, that is, their personal beliefs or expectations with facts...

Those who know or understand little about themselves are also more likely to over- or underestimate their capacities, including rational, factual and moral judgment, and then to adopt ideological postulates, even if they are based on distortions of facts, fallacies... treating them as indisputable truths, as long as they confirm their personal beliefs...

Those who know or understand little about themselves are less likely to pay attention to themselves, to their own thoughts and feelings, and therefore to contradict themselves more often. Or they may also be too self-centered and pay too much attention to themselves, but especially to their distorted self-image, which makes little difference in terms of self-understanding...

Those who know or understand little about themselves are more likely to be narcissists, especially if they overestimate themselves. Therefore, they are more likely to adopt only ideological beliefs that are in line with their feelings, thoughts, personality, personal circumstances... in short, that reinforce their egocentrism, their personally biased interpretation of reality (or over-personalization/irrationality) instead of seeking to mature intellectually to accept and deal with the facts as they present themselves...

However, low self-knowledge can also manifest itself through impostor syndrome, making an individual more vulnerable to adopting ideological beliefs in an uncritical manner, not necessarily or only because they reinforce their personal beliefs, but also as a way of masking their real or exaggerated self-perception of inability to think logically and rationally. And if it is a true incapacity, it is more in line with the case of narcissism, of over-self-esteem, than of under-self-esteem.

Mais pensamentos de alfinetes/More Pin Thoughts

 O fanatismo é uma identificação ou atração confundida com vocação 

O talento sem vocação é um desperdício 

A verdadeira vocação é a existência de uma atração relacionada a um talento

"A EXTREMA direita venceu" 

Temem e lamentam aqueles que se intitulam, com orgulho, como "RADICAIS", "subversivos"...

"Eu odeio a polarização política"

Dizem muitos esquerdistas, dos grupos político-ideológicos mais fanatizados e responsáveis por essa mesma polarização... 

Por mais primárias, superficiais, insensíveis e supersticiosas sejam muitas das crenças conservadoras, incluindo tipicamente a crença religiosa, ainda assim, elas têm preservado um mínimo de conhecimentos básicos e práticos, tal como de que só existem homens e mulheres (e adaptado ao contexto trans: de que um homem não pode se tornar uma mulher) ou de que existem raças humanas, em oposição às crenças "progressistas' 

Isso significa que, uma parte do que hoje em dia tem sido demonizado como "preconceitos' da "extrema direita", nada mais é do que uma herança cultural desse mínimo de conhecimentos básicos e práticos que eram passados de geração em geração 

Parece comum subestimar o quão grave pode ser uma deficiência em capacidade racional. Pois uma demonstração de sua periculosidade, primeiramente ao próprio indivíduo que apresenta esse déficit, é uma incapacidade de tecer uma boa compreensão sobre o mundo que tende a torná-lo suscetível a adotar crenças e atitudes que aumentam a sua insegurança pessoal, mesmo se inconsciente disso, por exemplo, de ser ou se tornar favorável ou indiferente à políticas de imigração em massa ao seu país 

Ainda assim, existem crenças progressistas que são basicamente complementares às conservadoras por também se basearem em preocupações legítimas, tal como a preocupação pela destruição massiva do meio ambiente por lucros, normalizada e justificada por muitos conservadores...

Típico ateu 

"Eu faço zombarias apenas com o cristianismo porque apenas os cristãos que tentam me converter à sua religião, isto é, que praticam proselitismo"

Pois um típico ateu, um ideólogo "progressista", reclama de proselitistas cristãos, mas se esquece ou não tem a menor consciência de que também se tornou um proselitista de suas ideologias ao defender que sejam impostas institucionalmente, diga-se, ideologias plantadas ou politicamente defendidas por "messiânicos" do sionismo internacional (plano de longo prazo de domínio político e estrutural do "povo' judeu sobre o mundo, começando com o mundo ocidental, em pleno vigor especialmente depois da segunda guerra mundial e detectável pela confluência de padrões tal como a enorme desproporção de judeus em espaços de poder em vários países ocidentais e também em movimentos que visam alterar cultural e etnicamente esses mesmos países) 

Argumento comum de um ateu brasileiro e autodeclarado progressista

"Eu critico especialmente o cristianismo por ser a religião mais importante no nosso país. Por isso que não faço o mesmo com o islamismo e o judaísmo" 

Então, por que você simplesmente não se abstém de ter uma opinião sobre esses grupos com base nesse argumento de não serem comuns por aqui?? Porque eu sei que você costuma ter opiniões mais positivas sobre essas 'religiões" e seus seguidores...

Eu não sou totalmente contra tentar converter os outros às próprias crenças, especialmente se forem baseadas em ponderação, objetividade e imparcialidade, isto é, em racionalidade. E, também, se todos nós fazemos isso, de qualquer maneira, mesmo se de maneira indireta ou inconsciente...

"Segundo previsões demográficas, a África subsaariana terá quatro BILHÕES de pessoas até o final do século XXI"

Pois dependendo de como você reagir a essa frase, isso pode indicar o quão realmente ignorante ou conhecedor você está sobre o mundo, especialmente quanto aos conhecimentos mais básicos, como aqueles relacionados ao comportamento humano...

Mais do que um pensador, o filósofo verdadeiro tem que se comportar omo um cartógrafo da realidade, como um criador de mapas de verdades...

Um esquerdista típico ao ler "A Revolução dos Bichos" pensa que é um dos porcos e não o cavalo...

Se uma "mulher trans" (um homem) pode disputar com mulheres em competições esportivas, então, por que brancos não podem se declarar negros ou pardos e disputar vagas de cotas na educação superior, concurso público ou emprego no setor privado??

Hein "esquerda" BURGUESA??   

Se ofender fosse um crime tão sério quanto espancar, estuprar ou matar, eu já deveria ter recebido uma boa quantia da justiça; todos nós já teríamos ficha criminal e alguns ou muitos "juízes da moralidade pós moderna" estariam atrás das grades...

O maior inimigo das artes é o relativista cultural

Em um cenário de democracia completa, o direito à livre associação seria um dos direitos mais importantes 

Fanáticos adoram cultuar seus "Goldsteins" ou "inimigos máximos', também por ser um modo de canalizar toda percepção de mal para o "outro lado" da trincheira, enquanto eles mesmos se abstêm de um auto exame de consciência

É comum que um professor seja uma pessoa comum que se pensa como um intelectual 

É comum que um ''historiador'' ou 'professor" de história esquerdista se comporte como um mero propagandista político 

A maldade de direita tende a ser sincera, orgulhosa e natural. A maldade de esquerda tende a ser hipócrita, disfarçada e cínica 

Talvez fosse melhor mudarmos o nome da profissão de jornalista para "pau mandado do poder", se a maioria deles se comporta exatamente desse jeito

O acadêmico "não-cientista" é, no mínimo, um burocrata e, no máximo, um pseudo-intelectual 

Quem mais "educa" ou influencia os filhos não são os pais, mas as ruas ou o meio e eles mesmos. Muito notável pelas diferenças intergeracionais de comportamento e tendências culturais 

O nível de ignorância de muitas pessoas continua no mesmo nível de crença em superstições em desprezo concomitante às evidências 

O instinto é o saber sem o aprender. Uma herança direta 

"Ninguém é obrigado a gostar ou a tolerar ninguém...

Mas é obrigado a respeitar...."

Só quando há respeito por ambas as partes...

Se Cuba é uma democracia plena, então, por que não acontecem plebiscitos legítimos que ratificam os desejos de sua população? Por exemplo, por que o povo cubano não pode decidir sobre a possibilidade ou liberdade de viajar ao exterior??

Tem um tipo de idiota que se assemelha ao gênio por também não dar importância à opinião alheia, seguindo a sua própria intuição, dependendo apenas do seu próprio juízo. E por isso que é um idiota e não um gênio 

O típico "nerd" é mais um idiota que se acha mais sábio que os outros, mais um falso positivo de inteligência racional 

Existem traços de personalidade e de inteligência que são tão intensos e naturais, ou tão constantes e indiferentes à qualquer influência do meio, que parecem ser mais intrínsecos do que os que parecem ser mais suscetíveis ou derivados de influências extrínsecas

Tem muitos abortistas fanáticos que dariam excelentes abortos 

Muitos se tornam ateus mirando na razão, mas acertando no niilismo e no narcisismo intelectual 

Afirmações extraordinárias sem evidências extraordinárias definem a estrutura de qualquer pseudociência ou pseudofilosofia 

O privilégio e o vitimismo podem fazer uma pessoa acreditar em qualquer coisa

É comum que o "artista pós moderno" seja aquele indivíduo que encontra-se desprovido de talento e que se beneficia de uma boa situação socioeconômica para investir em seu delírio de grandeza

No Brasil e em outros países, enquanto a esquerda promove a disgenia intelectual pelo incentivo natalista de grupos menos inteligentes, com base em hegemonia institucional e imposição de lavagem cerebral com pseudociências do bem e falácias morais, a direita faz o mesmo só que pelo fundamentalismo religioso. Ambas, inimigas da evolução humana mais ideal

Uma das maiores falácias sobre a bondade, amplamente adotada pela esquerda, e que também é uma falácia sobre a justiça, é a de que são plenamente possíveis mesmo sem imparcialidade e objetividade ou que podem ser praticadas em seu estado mais puro, como se isso existisse 

Aderência ideológica acrítica ou fanática reflete uma incapacidade de diferenciar o falso de um verdadeiro expertise ou conhecimento específico; uma deficiência intelectual qualitativa que parece comum entre professores, jornalistas... Um tipo mais "fordista", muito estreito em suas capacidades cognitivas, muito especializado em um conjunto mais restrito de 'conhecimentos" e que pode ser um fator que contribui para essa deficiência; que foi, inclusive, citada no livro "A Revolução dos Bichos" ("duas patas ruim, quatro patas bom")

Associada a essa possível ou provável deficiência cognitiva, também uma imaturidade emocional que impede o mais ideologicamente fanático de aceitar quando suas crenças não correspondem aos fatos ou não são ponderadas 

E também seria interessante saber se essa deficiência comunga com uma ideia de "minha autoria', de que é o cognitivo que influencia o emotivo e que, portanto, nesse caso, seria uma tendência perceptiva mais autocentrada que contribuiria para um narcisismo intelectual e, então, para déficits em capacidade racional e emocional (intrapessoal ou de autoconhecimento)

Isso também significa que se está apoiando intelectual e até moralmente em um conjunto mais fechado de ideias, crenças e/ou pensamentos que não são inteiramente baseados em ponderação analítica, imparcialidade, objetividade, isto é, em uma abordagem realmente racional 

Para você conseguir perseverar dentro de uma universidade, ou você precisa gostar muito de ciência e ainda ser capaz de avançar seus projetos genuinamente científicos ou ser excepcionalmente compatível com o ambiente de extrema conformidade ideológica que predomina nesse ambiente 

Alguns (ou muitos?) dos maiores defensores da democracia implicitamente a conceituam como sinônimo de anarquia ou libertinagem 

Se a educação superior realmente priorizasse a qualidade em seus processos avaliativos e seletivos, dentro de um contexto acadêmico, isto é, se priorizasse qualidades essenciais ao trabalho científico, como uma vocação e uma capacidade de buscar pela verdade objetiva, é bem possível que as universidades seriam muito diferentes do que são hoje, já que muitos dos acadêmicos que se enveredam em pseudociências, especialmente em "pseudociências do bem", enviesadas ideologicamente à esquerda no espectro político e amplamente toleradas nesses ambientes, não teriam espaço ou já seriam rejeitados durante os processos seletivos

Fanaticism is an identification or attraction confused with vocation

Talent without vocation is a waste

True vocation is the existence of an attraction related to a talent

"The FAR right won"

They fear and regret those who proudly call themselves "RADICALS", "subversives"...

"I hate political polarization"

Many leftists say, from the most fanatical political-ideological groups, responsible for this same polarization...

However primary, superficial, insensitive and superstitious many conservative beliefs may be, typically including religious belief, they have nevertheless preserved a minimum of basic and practical knowledge, such as that there are only men and women (and adapted to the trans context. : that a man cannot become a woman) or that human races exist, as opposed to "progressive" beliefs

This means that part of what today has been demonized as "prejudices" of the "extreme right", is nothing more than a cultural inheritance of that minimum of basic and practical knowledge that was passed down from generation to generation.

It seems common to underestimate how serious a deficiency in rational capacity can be. Because a demonstration of their dangerousness, primarily to the individual who presents this deficit, is an inability to form a good understanding of the world, which tends to make them susceptible to adopting beliefs and attitudes that increase their personal insecurity, even if they are unconscious of it. , for example, of being or becoming favorable or indifferent to mass immigration policies to your country

Still, there are progressive beliefs that are basically complementary to conservative ones because they are also based on legitimate concerns, such as the concern about the massive destruction of the environment for profit, normalized and justified by many conservatives...

Typical atheist

"I only make fun of Christianity because only Christians who try to convert me to their religion, that is, who practice proselytism"

Because a typical atheist, a "progressive" ideologue, complains about Christian proselytizers, but forgets or is not at all aware that he has also become a proselytizer of his ideologies by defending that they be institutionally imposed, that is, planted or politically planted ideologies defended by "messianics" of international Zionism (long-term plan of political and structural domination of the Jewish "people" over the world, starting with the Western world, in full force especially after the second world war and detectable by the confluence of patterns such as the enormous disproportion of Jews in spaces of power in several Western countries and also in movements that aim to culturally and ethnically alter these same countries)

Common argument from a Brazilian atheist and self-declared progressive

"I especially criticize Christianity because it is the most important religion in our country. That's why I don't do the same with Islam and Judaism"

So why don't you just refrain from having an opinion about these groups based on this argument that they are not common around here? Because I know you tend to have more positive opinions about these 'religions' and their followers...

I'm not totally against trying to convert others to one's beliefs, especially if they are based on consideration, objectivity and impartiality, that is, on rationality. And also, if we all do this, in any way, even if indirectly or unconsciously...

"According to demographic forecasts, sub-Saharan Africa will have four BILLION people by the end of the 21st century"

Because depending on how you react to this phrase, it could indicate how truly ignorant or knowledgeable you are about the world, especially regarding the most basic knowledge, such as that related to human behavior...

More than a thinker, the true philosopher has to behave like a cartographer of reality, like a creator of maps of truths...

A typical leftist reading "Animal Farm" thinks he is one of the pigs and not the horse...

If a "trans woman" (a man) can compete with women in sporting competitions, then why can't white people declare themselves black or mixed race and compete for quota places in higher education, public examinations or employment in the private sector?

Huh, bourgeois “left”??

If offending was as serious a crime as beating, raping or killing, I should have already received a good amount from justice; We would all already have a criminal record and some or many "judges of postmodern morality" would be behind bars...

The greatest enemy of the arts is the cultural relativist

In a scenario of complete democracy, the right to free association would be one of the most important rights

Fanatics love to worship their "Goldsteins" or "maximum enemies", also because it is a way of channeling all perception of evil to the "other side" of the trench, while theythey themselves refrain from self-examination of conscience

It is common for a teacher to be an ordinary person who thinks of himself as an intellectual

It is common for a left-wing ''historian'' or ''professor'' of history to behave like a mere political propagandist.

Right-wing evil tends to be sincere, proud and natural. Left wing evil tends to be hypocritical, disguised and cynical

Maybe it would be better if we changed the name of the profession of journalist to "stick of power", if the majority of them behave exactly like that

The "non-scientist" academic is, at best, a bureaucrat and, at most, a pseudo-intellectual

Those who most "educate" or influence children are not the parents, but the streets or the environment and themselves. Very notable for intergenerational differences in behavior and cultural trends

The level of ignorance of many people remains at the same level of belief in superstitions and concomitant disregard for evidence

Instinct is knowing without learning. A direct inheritance

"No one is obliged to like or tolerate anyone...

But you are obliged to respect...."

Only when there is respect on both sides...

If Cuba is a full democracy, then why aren't there legitimate plebiscites that ratify the wishes of its population? For example, why can't the Cuban people decide on the possibility or freedom of traveling abroad?

There is a type of idiot who is similar to genius because he also does not care about other people's opinions, following his own intuition, depending only on his own judgment. And that's why he's an idiot and not a genius

The typical "nerd" is more of an idiot who thinks he is wiser than others, more of a false positive of rational intelligence

There are personality and intelligence traits that are so intense and natural, or so constant and indifferent to any environmental influence, that they seem to be more intrinsic than those that seem to be more susceptible to or derived from extrinsic influences.

There are many fanatical abortionists who would provide excellent abortions

Many become atheists aiming for reason, but hitting on nihilism and intellectual narcissism

Extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence define the structure of any pseudoscience or pseudophilosophy

Privilege and victimhood can make a person believe anything

It is common for the "postmodern artist" to be that individual who is devoid of talent and who benefits from a good socioeconomic situation to invest in his delusion of grandeur.

In Brazil and other countries, while the left promotes intellectual dysgenics through the natalist encouragement of less intelligent groups, based on institutional hegemony and the imposition of brainwashing with good pseudosciences and moral fallacies, the right does the same only through religious fundamentalism . Both, enemies of the most ideal human evolution

One of the biggest fallacies about kindness, widely adopted by the left, and which is also a fallacy about justice, is that they are fully possible even without impartiality and objectivity or that they can be practiced in their purest state, as if this existed.

Uncritical or fanatical ideological adherence reflects an inability to differentiate false from true expertise or specific knowledge; a qualitative intellectual deficiency that seems common among teachers, journalists... A more "Fordist" type, very narrow in its cognitive capabilities, very specialized in a more restricted set of 'knowledge' and which may be a factor that contributes to this deficiency ; which was even mentioned in the book "Animal Revolution" ("two legs bad, four legs good").

Associated with this possible or probable cognitive deficiency is also an emotional immaturity that prevents the most ideologically fanatical from accepting when their beliefs do not correspond to the facts or are not considered.

And it would also be interesting to know whether this deficiency shares an idea of ​​"my authorship", that it is the cognitive that influences the emotional and that, therefore, in this case, it would be a more self-centered perceptual tendency that would contribute to intellectual narcissism and, therefore, , for deficits in rational and emotional capacity (intrapersonal or self-knowledge)

This also means that one is relying intellectually and even morally on a more closed set of ideas, beliefs and/or thoughts that are not entirely based on analytical consideration, impartiality, objectivity, that is, on a truly rational approach.

For you to be able to persevere within a university, you either need to really like science and still be able to advance your genuinely scientific projects or be exceptionally compatible with the environment of extreme ideological conformity that predominates in this environment.

Some (or many?) of the greatest defenders of democracy implicitly conceptualize it as synonymous with anarchy or libertinism

If higher education really/prioritized quality in their evaluative and selective processes, within an academic context, that is, if they prioritized qualities essential to scientific work, such as a vocation and an ability to search for objective truth, it is quite possible that universities would be very different from what are today, since many of the academics who engage in pseudosciences, especially in "pseudosciences of good", ideologically biased to the left of the political spectrum and widely tolerated in these environments, would not have space or would already be rejected during the selection processes

Teimosia patológica é um sinal muito claro de irracionalidade/Pathological stubbornness is a very clear sign of irrationality

 Talvez, um dos mais característicos, de quando uma pessoa teima mesmo diante de evidências ou fatos, mesmo quando percebe que o seu raciocínio não é o mais ponderado. E quanto mais frequente se torna esse padrão, mais irracional.

Perhaps one of the most characteristic, when a person is stubborn even in the face of evidence or facts, even when they realize that their reasoning is not the most considered. And the more frequent this pattern becomes, the more irrational.

Sobre a prevalência da irracionalidade humana/On the prevalence of human irrationality

 Por sermos uma espécie social, nós, seres humanos, somos mais cognitivamente especializados e, portanto, mais intelectualmente dependentes uns dos outros. Metaforicamente, isso significa que somos como células de um organismo, especializadas em uma gama mais limitada de funções que, idealmente, refletem nossas capacidades ou inclinações mais "naturais' (desprezando a ocorrência frequente de alocação relativa de especialização dentro das organizações sociais humanas). Como resultado, produz-se um organismo social inteligente "às custas" da inteligência dos indivíduos que o compõem, como é comum de se perceber em outras espécies sociais, como as formigas. No entanto, existem dois tipos raros de indivíduos humanos que fogem parcialmente a essa regra: são eles os mais intelectualmente dotados, especialmente os que caem em uma categoria de polímata, e os mais racionais. O primeiro, por ser o mais cognitivamente generalista, capaz de aprender uma gama mais ampla de conhecimentos e, portanto, um tipo mais científico, refletindo o que a ciência também se consiste, em uma generalização da especialização, tal como a defini nesse texto "Ciência, Filosofia e mais uma diferença" (porque tudo o que a ciência "toca" se torna um domínio específico do conhecimento). Já o segundo, por ser ou se tornar um especialista na capacidade de raciocinar e, portanto, de julgar (inclusive sobre a sua própria capacidade) seria um tipo mais filosófico, se uma aptidão em filosofia, diga-se, em sua prática verdadeira ou mais condizente com o seu conceito, se expressa como uma especialização na generalização, também com base no mesmo texto destacado, justamente pela onipresença do julgamento/por estarmos a todo momento julgando nossas ações e pensamentos, bem como dos outros, o certo ou o errado, justo ou injusto, verdadeiro ou falso, ou neutro...

Portanto, uma das prováveis razões para a prevalência da irracionalidade (diga-se, unicamente**) em nossa espécie é por sermos, em média, mais cognitivamente especializados, também incluindo ou influenciando na capacidade de raciocínio (de analisar informações), além da de aprendizado (de apreender informações), enquanto que, uma racionalidade mais desenvolvida requer uma maior capacidade de julgamento (de generalização do raciocínio), isto é, de pensar e julgar corretamente¹ sobre uma ampla gama de tópicos, desde os mais básicos até aos mais complexos, inclusive e especialmente sobre a própria capacidade de julgá-los, em que a percepção da própria inaptidão ou incapacidade pode ser mais adequado do que o oposto, quando se percebe específica e precisamente incapaz, tal como eu comentei em outros textos (por exemplo, nesse: "A maneira equivocada como definimos estupidez e o autoconhecimento": resumo, 'saber que não sabe não é estupidez, mas um autoconhecimento sobre as próprias limitações...')

* Apesar de também sermos a espécie mais cognitivamente generalista, especialmente por causa da cultura, mas "apenas' se nos compararmos com as outras espécies.

¹ "Julgar corretamente", ou racionalmente, com base em evidências e/ou ponderação de raciocínio. 

** Com base no meu pensamento escrito em outros textos, de que apenas o ser humano pode ser irracional por também ser o único animal que pode ser racional, oriundo da lógica de que, só é possível estar deficiente em uma determinada capacidade se outros indivíduos da espécie ou população ao qual pertence apresentarem um potencial variável e verdadeiro para desenvolvê-la ou de, ao menos, expressá-la. Também baseado no pensamento de que animais não-humanos não podem ser irracionais, se a irracionalidade é um tipo de estupidez, discordante dos comportamentos adaptativos altamente lógicos e eficientes, mesmo das espécies mais simples.

On the prevalence of human irrationality

Because we are a social species, we, humans, are more cognitively specialized and therefore more intellectually dependent on each other. Metaphorically, this means that we are like cells in an organism, specialized in a more limited range of functions that ideally reflect our more 'natural' capabilities or inclinations (neglecting the frequent occurrence of relative allocation of specialization within human social organizations). As a result, an intelligent social organism is produced "at the expense" of the intelligence of the individuals that compose it, as is common to see in other social species, such as ants. However, there are two rare types of human individuals that partially escape to this rule: they are the most intellectually gifted, especially those who fall into a polymath category, and the most rational. The first, as it is the most cognitively generalist, capable of learning a wider range of knowledge and, therefore, a more scientific type, reflecting what science also consists of, in a generalization of specialization, as I defined it in this text " Science, Philosophy and one more difference" (because everything that science "touches" becomes a specific domain of knowledge). The second, by being or becoming a specialist in the ability to reason and, therefore, to judge (including about one's own ability) would be a more philosophical type, if an aptitude in philosophy, that is, in its true practice or more consistent with its concept, it is expressed as a specialization in generalization, also based on the same highlighted text, precisely because of the omnipresence of judgment/because we are constantly judging our actions and thoughts, as well as those of others, right or wrong , fair or unfair, true or false, or neutral...

Therefore, one of the probable reasons for the prevalence of irrationality (solely**) in our species is because we are, on average, more cognitively specialized, also including or influencing the ability to reason (to analyze information), in addition to of learning (to learn/apprehend information), while a more developed rationality requires a greater capacity for judgment (to generalize reasoning), that is, to think and judge correctly¹ on a wide range of topics, from the most basic to the most complexes, including and especially about one's own ability to judge them, in which the perception of one's own ineptitude or incapacity may be more appropriate than the opposite, when one perceives oneself specifically and precisely incapable, as I have commented in other texts (e.g. , in this: "The mistaken way we define stupidity and self-knowledge": summary, 'knowing that you don't know is not stupidity, but self-knowledge about your own limitations...')

* Although we are also the most cognitively generalist species, especially because of culture, but "only" if we compare ourselves to other species.

¹ "Judge correctly", or rationally, based on evidence and/or weighted reasoning.

** Based on my thoughts written in other texts, that only humans can be irrational because they are also the only animals that can be rational, arising from the logic that it is only possible to be deficient in a certain capacity if other individuals of the species or population to which it belongs presents a variable and true potential to develop it or, at least, express it. Also based on the thought that non-human animals cannot be irrational, if irrationality is a type of stupidity, discordant with the highly logical and efficient adaptive behaviors of even the simplest species.