More on unfollowing YouTube channels—and an old (nearly dead) hope

 Among the channels I’ve stopped following for ideological reasons, one stands out. When I first started watching it—a channel run by a guy from Santa Catarina/Brazil who talks about comics and politics—I was under the false impression that he was a self-critical leftist, someone who showed at least a glimmer of self-awareness. He projected a "masculine" brand of leftism, distinct from the kind of style often associated with LGBT sociologists who focus exclusively on "identity politics."

Over time, however, I realized he was just another dogmatic "redwing"—the only difference being his more "folksy" or "everyman" style of speaking.

There was another channel, too, that seemed to belong to a self-critical progressive—a "linguistics expert"—but the deeper I delved, the more I realized he was just another fanatical "socialist."

And so, I’m left with this old, nearly extinguished hope: of finding a leftist content creator who is genuinely impartial and intellectually honest...

On Unfollowing YouTube Channels

 Her name was Natasha; she was Russian-born. She had a YouTube channel, a quirky sense of humor, and the largest country in the world as her backdrop.

She could even make a vacant lot look interesting.

Then the war began, and she started becoming increasingly political.

She lost her charm, turning into just another "Natasha"—no longer the one I once knew—becoming just another twenty-something with an arrogant conviction about how the world works. She adopted the aspirations of a "citizen of the world"—yet another cosmopolitan, progressive clone.

I also stopped following her friend, "The Depressed Russian," as well as another Russian woman—both part of her social circle of expatriate compatriots in Georgia. The latter stopped making interesting vlogs and, upon moving to the U.S., transformed into another would-be member of the international elite.

I should also mention a guy named Roman—the only man in this group—whom I unfollowed for the very same reason.

I also recall two other content creators of the same nationality whom I stopped following. One I hadn’t followed for very long, as I simply couldn’t maintain enough interest to keep watching. The other often spoke about introversion and high sensitivity—traits I tend to relate to—yet I stopped following her for the exact same reason mentioned below.

Even before the war in Ukraine—and the subsequent surge in my interest in Russians who dissent against Putin—during and shortly after the pandemic, I became quite interested in two American YouTubers. Both were Jewish (though they didn’t explicitly state it; I inferred this from their surnames, appearance, and other clues). Their channels were fascinating—covering more than just sewing and vintage fashion—and at the time, they put a great deal of effort into producing highly polished, well-crafted videos. Despite having no prior interest in fashion or needlework, I found myself watching their videos almost every week for two years or more. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict took on even greater proportions following the attacks of October 2023, leading me to unfollow their accounts when they began declaring their support for Israel—a stance that stood in stark contrast (or perhaps not) to their otherwise "progressive" leanings (a level of hypocrisy that knows no bounds). One of these individuals even took part in one of the most shameful pseudo-documentaries produced this decade—Netflix’s take on Cleopatra, portraying her as a "Black," "empowered" woman who twerks all the way to the floor...

More recently, I stopped following a Norwegian YouTube channel called "Introverted and a dog." The creator—a gay, upper-middle-class, married man—documented his daily life and that of his little dog in one of the wealthiest and most egalitarian countries on Earth. Yet, he could never quite mask his ideological leanings toward the "cultural left," which surfaced amidst his philosophical musings and artfully produced footage. It was a good channel, but one that lost its charm for me precisely because of this subtle, ever-present bias—the perspective of someone so incredibly privileged, yet so ungrateful for the country he lives in. He seemed eager to see his own nation consumed by the destructive forces of multiculturalism, all while perched comfortably atop his social-class privilege and a sense of victimhood. I recall there being a new video every Saturday (and I believe there still is); I used to enjoy watching them, usually first thing in the morning...

I also followed a young Norwegian woman for a while, who shared glimpses of her daily life with her partner—until a breaking point was reached.

And it’s not just foreigners I could talk about. For quite a few months, I followed a Brazilian woman living in Japan who presents herself like a real-life anime character—dyed red hair and a "kawaii" (cute) way of speaking and behaving, at least when on camera. I was charmed by her humor and the interesting facts she shared about a country I’ve always liked: Japan. But then, during the (dirty and rigged) elections of 2026, she decided to get politically involved and declared her support for the "father of the poor." That was enough for me to hit the unfollow button; after all, she proved to be yet another privileged, ignorant (or perhaps ill-intentioned) person, defending politicians and ideologies that do far more harm than good to ordinary people.

This shares a common thread with the other channels I mentioned: the erosion of the connection due to moral and political differences.

And don’t worry—as for the other channels I still follow, it’s likely I’ll eventually stop following some of them, too. This happens when I realize the creator holds a worldview that is incompatible or irreconcilable with my own, or if the channel loses its essence—shifting its direction, whether through the content itself or the creator’s attitude. In some instances—like the first one I mentioned—the change is stark: the original authenticity has given way to a more generic, sanitized version.

Interestingly, I’ve always gravitated more toward channels created by women. Perhaps it’s because my own nature is so deeply rooted in realism, which leads me to seek out a contrast—creators who produce calmer, "softer" videos—a kind of need for escapism.

The left—represented by Lula and the Workers' Party (PT)—could win again in Brazil. But who, exactly, votes for them?

 Criminals, degenerates, and "useful idiots," for starters...

Let’s draw a parallel with Carlo Cipolla and his "Seven Laws of Human Stupidity."

I’m not referring to the text itself—which is quite good—but rather to a key component used to formulate these laws: his typology of behavioral tendencies, which categorizes members of our species into four groups: the intelligent, the criminal, the naive, and the stupid.

So, does it make any sense to keep voting for a party—or parties—that have held power for over twenty years, and whose ideologies have effectively pushed the country toward social chaos and the destruction of its cultural and intellectual foundations? An ideology that claims human life only begins at birth, yet simultaneously asserts that a man dressed as a woman can be considered a woman? Is this not a case of "2+2=5" taken to the nth degree, over and over again?

According to Cipolla, an "intelligent" person is one who contributes to the well-being of others while also benefiting themselves. It stands to reason that someone so constructive would hardly be ignorant or stupid enough to consistently believe, spread, or invent lies—especially those that are blatantly obvious—particularly when such falsehoods tend to be more harmful than beneficial to social balance and long-term progress.

Then there is the "naive" person, who contributes to others at their own expense—as opposed to the "criminal," who benefits themselves at the expense of others.

Finally, there is the "stupid" person, whose actions result in a net negative for both themselves and everyone else.

These are archetypes, and naturally, we all possess a bit of each—though some traits are more dominant than others.

In modern Western politics, how might the left and the right map onto these categories—especially the more problematic ones? 

As for criminals—even though the right has an extensive history of favoring those who commit crimes while wearing suits and ties, military uniforms, or even crowns—it is the left that has increasingly attracted "classic" criminals ever since it emerged as a political and social force. After all, it is the left that labels them "victims of society"—particularly those from the lower socioeconomic classes—advocating for them to have the maximum of rights and privileges, and it is the left that most strongly believes the criminal justice system should focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

Furthermore, a certain type of criminal or unscrupulous individual—the extreme hypocrite, characterized by a persistent behavioral and moral pattern of hypocrisy, or a significant dissonance between what they profess to believe and how they actually act—seems to abound on the "left." "Progressive" narratives, with their vague, subjective, and pretentiously altruistic or self-sacrificing tone, align perfectly with this type of behavior.

This is not to say that such individuals cannot also be found in abundance on the right; rather, the right tends to attract a different sort of criminal. The left, however, has gone a step further by adopting these individuals—especially those from lower social classes—as a group that is ideologically defensible.

The "chronically" naive individual also appears to be more common on the left than on the right. The left has honed its ability to act as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," espousing "benevolent" narratives, positioning itself alongside the "oppressed," and championing supposedly altruistic public policies—all while preaching self-sacrifice and submission to "oppressors." In reality, however, it is organizing itself to seize or consolidate power, ultimately becoming the new oppressors. Consequently, both the hypocritical criminal and the "profoundly naive" individual find themselves drawn to this side ...by these narratives—especially when they become hegemonic—with the distinction that the "naive" person tends to identify with the lamb on the surface, while the (consciously) hypocritical "villain" identifies with the wolf at their core.

The "naive" person also tends to be a simple-minded type who cannot see beyond appearances, believing in whatever is presented as emotion or motivation without seeking to verify its truth. This is the sort of person most susceptible to "wolves in sheep's clothing," possessing an underdeveloped capacity for moral discernment and self-defense—someone who, even as an adult, continues to think like a child in these interpersonal and psychological contexts.

Finally, there is the "intelligent" person—the most rational or wise type among those identified by Cipolla—who embodies a highly efficient model of intelligence in everyday life. This remains true even though, in the typically human realm, varying degrees of malice, naivety, and stupidity occur all too frequently.

Well, given that so-called "progressive" narratives are largely built upon lies and half-truths—and sustained by logical and moral fallacies—it is unlikely that an "intelligent" person would consistently align themselves with the Left. By the same token, I believe they would not deeply commit to the Right either, even if...It could be argued that the level of insanity on the left tends to be more pronounced, making the choice for the right less inherently irrational—or, rather, a "choice of the lesser evil," a sensible stance within highly imperfect social or adaptive environments.

Returning to the groups that most frequently vote for leftist parties and support their ideologies—criminals, degenerates, and "useful idiots"—if we map these onto the categories proposed by Carlo Cipolla in his "7 Laws of Human Stupidity," we inevitably observe a specific distribution of these types at the individual level, which then manifests collectively; certain groups of individuals will show a disproportionate representation of one type over others.

Thus, those who harm others for their own gain (criminals), those who harm themselves to benefit others, and those who harm both themselves and others—the classic "useful idiots"—emerge as the predominant types within the demographic of the left.

As for "degenerates," they constitute a somewhat parallel category; while they are likely more common among criminals, their prevalence depends on the specific nature of the "degeneration."

"Intelligent" (consistent) individuals would be exceptionally rare within these circles.

The right (in both economic and cultural dimensions) would exhibit a distribution closer to the human average, precisely because it represents—or encompasses—the more traditional, "typical" human being. In terms of the estimated frequency of these types, one might currently find: a disproportionate number of "naïve" individuals and criminals, a smaller proportion of "stupid" individuals, and a higher proportion of "intelligent" ones—or, perhaps, more balanced types, as one would expect from a typical human being.

I have previously discussed examples of public policies and their logical connections to the concept of stupidity as defined by Carlo Cipolla. Here, I conclude by providing further examples through specific public policies and proposals. Among the most stupid or naive ideas are those concerning mass immigration and the softening of criminal penalties.

The former is supposedly intended to strengthen the left-wing electorate. Yet, in the long run, replacing an electorate—part of which is already under ideological control—with one that is either religiously empowered or more socially problematic does not seem productive for those who aim to perpetuate their own exclusive hold on power. Even if the "imported" electorate were more passive, it makes little sense to replace an existing one that is already sufficiently under control—especially if such a replacement also entails a decline in average technical capacity, as would be the case, for instance, by replacing ethnic Europeans with people from Africa or the Middle East.

On an individual level, the average leftist—who is generally detached from traditionalist culture—has far more to lose from an increased presence of such groups within their own social spheres.

In any case, this policy fits Cipolla’s concept of stupidity: causing harm to others and to oneself without gaining any consistent benefit.

As for the softening of criminal penalties—with the notable exception of "thought crimes"—this increases public insecurity, making life more dangerous for the ordinary citizen by leaving them at the mercy of criminals who have been convicted, sentenced, and subsequently released after serving only a fraction of their time.

Yet, the delusions defended by those on the left—which they present as crystal-clear, absolute truths—are both numerous and dominant within their narratives. Consequently, an inescapable fact remains: systematized reason—or philosophy in its most consistent and self-coherent practice—stands in direct opposition to much of what the "left" advocates. This chasm has only widened with the deliberate emergence of a more culturally degenerate version of the left.

The myth of a monolithic Brazil and yet another clear demonstration of democracy’s failure

 Brazil is, quite literally, half a continent, encompassing within its borders relatively distinct cultural, social, and political realities. Even among neighboring micro-regions, there are striking differences...

Add to this a particularly controversial factor: the oldest of its constituent regions—a sort of relic of colonial Brazil—is poorer, more underdeveloped, and more unequal than the others; yet, it is also the second most populous, making it politically influential in significant democratic contests, such as the election of a president. Furthermore, its demographic weight has been transformed into an electoral machine, having been progressively captured by leftist parties. They use it as a "fiefdom"—a stronghold with the highest concentration of individuals receiving handouts born of demagogic welfarism (or, more accurately, "scraps-ism"). This system, initiated by political parties and figures before the PT (Workers' Party) era, was adopted by the PT itself as its primary strategy for perpetuating its hold on power.

There are several serious issues here.

The most impoverished region—with the lowest levels of formal education (and, arguably, the lowest average IQ)—wields a disproportionate influence, effectively deciding the fate of a nation the size of a continent.

This region has been seized by demagogues of the worst kind. The situation hasn't truly changed; it has merely shifted from the era of *coronelismo* (local bossism) to this system of "scraps-ism."

Brazil’s political centralism effectively formalizes this fundamental injustice and ratifies the secondary, despicable practices mentioned above.

There is not just one Brazil; there are, at the very least, two.

Democracy itself reveals its extreme fragility within the Brazilian context—evidenced by Lula’s reelection in 2026, driven largely by the Northeast. This is to say nothing of the highly suspicious "events" that appear to have taken place behind the scenes of this orchestrated spectacle. Regardless, if the PT "stole" the country in this election, that theft was concentrated in the Northeast—a region where the *coronéis* (local bosses) of the past have simply been replaced by leftist politicians.

There is also the flawed, abstract notion that it is "fair" for half the country to lose whenever the other half, technically, "wins" an election—an attempt to impose mathematical precision upon the complex, multifaceted nature of the social fabric. At the very least, Brazil should be viewed as a country with a dual federal government—a principle that would apply not only to Brazil, but to any nation of such vast dimensions.

What is a leftist worth? And the extreme convenience of the "oppressed narrative"

A teacher typically defends their own interests as a member of a professional class on whose behalf they "act." That is, fundamentally, what it is. But it is highly convenient for them to adopt a narrative that not only elevates them to a symbolically superior position of social importance, but also links the defense of their own interests to those of the disadvantaged classes. This is extremely convenient, as it implies that they are also championing the interests of the poor. However, actions speak louder than the mere defense of vague rhetoric. And these actions reveal that the majority of the "educator" class—whether in Brazil or the U.S.—are primarily concerned with their own interests. They are just as petty as any other human group. Furthermore, they consider themselves vital to society (there are several "sensitive" points that call into question this belief—a very popular one among them—which I have addressed in other texts). As I have noted before, if a "far-right" party were to advocate for a massive salary increase for them, one shouldn't be surprised if the majority changed their ideology overnight. At their core, they are perhaps no different from mercenaries—or, for that matter, prostitutes. They sell themselves to the highest bidder. Yet, having a narrative that preaches "love" and "solidarity"—in the most cynical and ill-intentioned way possible—can serve as a wonderful moral shield, especially when one’s own character flaws and poor judgment become apparent.

The true dream of the leftist political elite is exactly the same as that of Oceania, the fictional country in *1984*

 If the left continues to win elections in Brazil, do not worry—after all, if even the leftists themselves—a large portion of their base and their cultural, academic, and political "elites"—are not worried, then why should you be? It does not matter to them if Brazil becomes increasingly violent and dysfunctional. What matters to them is power, and power alone.

As for the rest?

The power they have attained can itself take charge of constantly constructing and generating narratives to keep the population confused and anesthetized. Furthermore, the structural force of that power—through the co-optation of the armed forces, for example—can enforce the civilian population's obedience to higher commands.

Much like the social structure of Oceania—the fictional nation from George Orwell’s *1984*, that quintessential "bible" of political dystopia—which consists of a totalitarian political elite, a subordinate class of highly trained, indoctrinated individuals, and an underclass at the base of the social order, what they are pursuing is not, in fact, true social equality. Observe how these groups manifest in reality: the upper echelons of the socialist party—or an inner state—along with the rest of the associated political class. ...academics, artists, and liberal professionals—aligned as a high-level subaltern class or an external state—alongside a numerous underclass of dependents living off welfare crumbs (the "proles"); with the caveat that, in the real world, these "proles" actually receive those crumbs, whereas in the book, they are essentially left to fend for themselves...

It is also interesting to note that, while the totalitarian leftist sect places relatively little importance on the ideological indoctrination of the "proles"—so long as they continue to vote for their politicians—the same cannot be said for other classes, where self-policing is more intense and nearly compulsory, even if the display of ideological submission is merely a "facade"...

Yet, we need not resort to fictional examples from literature (even if rooted in reality) when we have actual, extant examples, such as the dystopias of Cuba and North Korea...

Therefore, do not worry—for neither the leftists living in those countries, nor those fortunate enough to (still) reside in variably democratic nations, concern themselves with the grave social and political problems plaguing those places. Their only concern is possessing absolute power (or the perception thereof) and the unfettered right to dictate the lives of others...

Pay no mind to moral degeneration or social dysfunction. They will find a way to blame others for these issues, or justify them, while doing nothing to combat them—especially when they themselves are the ones imposing or defending them...

It’s all just a charade...

If Brazil were to turn into a socialist dictatorship and the Amazon rainforest were to become a desert as a result of the government’s own actions during that period, they wouldn’t care... They would always find a way to blame others or play the victim, but they would never roll up their sleeves to solve existing problems—or the very problems they themselves have caused...

For those who deeply lamented the imprisonment of a (Venezuelan) dictator like Nicolás Maduro, yet cannot shed a single tear—not even a feigned one—for the suffering of the Cuban or North Korean people, it is clear that the people themselves are not what matters; rather, what matters is the power of the ideology or the groups they defend and align themselves with...

After all, it is through our actions, more so than our words, that we reveal who we truly are and what we genuinely believe in or desire...

Whether we are "normal," wise or ignorant, malevolent or altruistic, sane or insane...

If the Left continues to entrench itself in power—and if the same patterns that have historically emerged whenever they seize control continue to unfold—they will not be concerned; their sole focus will remain on defending the government of their own sect...

They truly do not care!

On two hard truths (or perhaps not) concerning—and directed at—teachers

 Especially for the left-wing activist-teacher, so common these days

1st: In the past—before the pedagogical dominance of "progressive" ideologies—being a teacher meant holding one of the most socially prestigious and valued professions; the teacher was regarded as the ultimate authority, typically enjoying the complete trust of parents. ...of society, in order to "discipline" and "educate" new generations...

It is not that I fully endorse how things were in the past... But the contrast with today is striking. There appears to be a clear link between this ideological dominance of the Left—manifested, firstly, through an ideology of parity between student and teacher (a "more modern" approach to instruction and classroom interaction) and, secondly, through the "ideology of the oppressed"—and the erosion of both the teacher’s authority and the formal, expected obligation to teach scientifically validated content while contributing to the transmission of more traditional values—among which, surprisingly, was the recognition of the teacher’s ultimate authority.

Second: The current, idealized (and exaggerated) image of the teacher as a morally superior professional, driven solely by a desire to teach, stands in stark contrast to the past—a time characterized by austerity and a respect rooted in the fear of the teacher’s authority.

In other words, even when teachers held great social prestige—reflected, for instance, in their salaries—it is a fact that many behaved in ways typical of human beings: when empowered, often displaying arrogance and abusing their power. Today, such empowerment occurs indirectly through ideological militancy—a far more symbolic form of empowerment, in which a teacher who engages in this activism perceives themselves as an agent of power, even though other, far more potent channels—such as the media—are already being used to serve the same doctrinal ends.

What is undeniably significant is the correlation between the ideological rise of the Left within the classroom and the decline of both the teacher’s authority and the prestige of the teaching profession. Yet, as is often the case with progressive public policies and influence, it seems quite clear that when a teacher’s authority is constantly challenged and equated with that of the student—a process that is further validated..by society, it is inevitable that the former becomes a devalued subject within this context...

The "Left's" political psychopathy is in full swing on the eve of the runoff election

 The "Left's" political psychopathy is in full swing on the eve of the runoff election.

The year is 2026, and the sheer volume of absurdities that the Brazilian *Petista* Left has—as usual—orchestrated and defended is, as I like to say, beyond belief...

On the eve of the runoff, following Flávio Bolsonaro's narrow—yet "unexpected"—victory, they began resorting to every possible tactic:

Promising an increase in the *Bolsa Família* welfare payment, a reduction in gasoline prices*, and an end to the 6x1 work schedule**—conveniently right before the election; essentially, a brazen attempt to buy votes...

Also by purchasing the support of "influencers" and "other" "artists";

*Interestingly, they managed to do this via a unilateral executive decree (??¹)—something they could have done at any point during their term??

¹ Specifically by cutting related taxes—a long-standing demand that the Left always dismisses...

** Something they could have fought to end back in their first administration, over twenty years ago... It is worth noting that this is one of the most fundamental aspects of the struggle for the working class: providing them with a minimum level of comfort...

Through the continuous spreading of lies (their specialty), with an avalanche of fake news;

Through the use of religious symbols (which they loathe) for cynical manipulation aimed at deceiving a segment of the Brazilian electorate—those more prone to falling for this cheap form of emotional blackmail;

Through displays of extreme arrogance and condescension (traits they always exhibit, though now more blatantly) in an attempt to "flip the votes" of the "right-wing poor" (whom they frequently dehumanize); Also, regarding the attempt to split the Right into the "democratic" (or "tame") faction and the "Bolsonarista far-right"...

It is unlikely that someone who is fully aware of what is happening—yet still supports these actions—possesses sound moral judgment, because often, the ends do *not* justify the means...

But what ends, exactly??

Another four years of a government ranging from mediocre to bad??

Public safety and healthcare left to rot; education steadily worsening, rife with indoctrination and dismal results; welfare measures that amount to little more than "handing out alms to the people in exchange for their support"; the tightening gag of politically correct censorship (stemming from the politicization of state institutions)...

If a hypothetical or potential future Bolsonaro administration won't solve all our problems, then let the Left lose this election: they don't deserve to win (and deserve it less and less)...

And if they *do* win, *we* are the ones who will keep losing, caught in their little game of "handing out handouts while advancing a totalitarian agenda and stripping away our basic rights." What is truly at stake is the legitimate viability of the shred of representative democracy we still have; after all, were it left solely to the many supporters of the Left and/or the PT, we would already be succumbing to a "people's democracy" defined by a single party and a single ideology...

What if a self-proclaimed fascist party raised teachers' salaries significantly???

 What if only explicitly fascist or neo-Nazi parties championed the rights (and privileges) of the "LGBT class"???

Would these groups change their ideology and start declaring unconditional support for those parties???

Would a large portion of groups currently leaning left change their minds if an explicitly far-right party or group decided to openly champion their demands???

Do the majority of them also have a price, just like those "artists' who show political support for left-wing parties, politicians, or ideologies—especially when well-paid???

How many are true idealists, and how many are on "this" or "that" side for purely pragmatic reasons???

Regarding certain correlations: mental disorder, cognitive style, political-ideological affiliation, and others

 Are individuals diagnosed as pathological liars disproportionately more likely to identify with the political-ideological Left?

Pathological lying—also known as mythomania—is a serious mental disorder characterized by an uncontrollable urge to lie; it often entails long-term negative personal consequences, particularly in social interactions.

Evidence for the condition has moved beyond mere psychiatric symptom description; neurological correlates¹ (indicate a chemical imbalance in the brain—specifically a significant asymmetry in the density of white matter relative to gray matter -white matter connects the brain's various regions-. This imbalance would explain both the group's facility for fabricating stories and their progressive difficulty in distinguishing fact from fiction). and with potential psychometric evidence (studies¹ have found a correlation between a cognitive profile marked by a verbal IQ higher than performance IQ and pathological lying—which, in turn, would explain the group's "strength" in creating or elaborating narratives, that is, their excessively promiscuous relationship with language).

However, there is a major problem—one I am not sure others besides myself have noticed: the high degree of political subjectivity involved in determining what counts as a lie that can be psychiatrized or diagnosed as a symptom of a mental disorder. For while lies of a more personal nature are the ones most frequently cited as evidence—particularly for diagnosing pathological lying—those that tend to be more peripheral to the individual's identity (political, social, cultural) do not fall into this category. And that is where, in my opinion, a major problem lies; because this way of defining truth and falsehood through a psychiatric lens limits the capacity of psychiatry itself (and science in general) to identify other individuals exhibiting similar or identical disorders. After all, when we lie (or believe lies), we do not do so solely regarding personal facts, but also regarding matters to which we are attached—matters viewed as variably "secondary" depending on their proximity to our core identities. For instance, a "cisgender" person might adopt the trans-activist falsehood that "gender identification transcends biological sexual determination"—essentially the idea that a woman can be a man if she identifies as such, and vice versa. Similarly, a person who identifies as "trans" generally adopts this falsehood as a personal fact; the difference is that for them, it manifests as a personal reality, whereas for the "cisgender" person, it tends to appear as a secondary or "impersonal" fact—one that might even be adopted not as a true belief but as a "white lie" for the sake of "empathetic support" or even "political" reasons. Yet, this does not redeem the stance—especially from a rational perspective—if a fact continues to be denied in favor of a lie. It is also interesting to note how volatile this political imposition of "truth" can be; not long ago, the falsehoods of trans activism were not vying for hegemony against objective truths—quite the opposite, in fact, as they were viewed precisely as manifestations of mental insanity...

However, this tendency among many individuals who identify with the political-ideological Left to embrace falsehoods is not limited to the example of radical trans activism; they generally prefer believing what appeals to them emotionally over prioritizing facts above their subjective personal impressions. They employ numerous logical and moral fallacies, as well as factual distortions, to defend their viewpoints. This makes it seem almost inevitable that one might perceive a positive correlation between pathological lying and a left-wing political-ideological affiliation. Not that pathological liars cannot be found among those who identify with the Right—I do believe there is significant variation and disparity across the political spectrum. Yet, the phenomenon appears more significant—or statistically centered—within the Left itself, bordering on a foundational relationship. After all, even conservative religious fundamentalists do not deny certain extremely basic facts (often the most influential and important ones) in the way leftists do—even if the two groups might be considered comparable in their adherence to forms of ideological fundamentalism (a comparison that could arguably be applied to fanaticism regarding any other ideology).

Psychometric evidence of a positive correlation 

Aside from the evidence itself contained in the various lies and half-truths

that predominate in leftist belief systems, there is also potential psychometric evidence of a positive correlation with pathological lying. As noted earlier, individuals with this disorder appear more prone to a cognitive profile marked by an asymmetry between verbal-linguistic intelligence and general intelligence—at least according to IQ tests. Specifically, they tend to show a higher verbal IQ than performance or general IQ—precisely the cognitive profile that appears common or disproportionately present among self-identified leftists, according to various studies finding a positive correlation between verbal IQ and left-wing political-ideological affiliation². It is also interesting to note the aesthetic-linguistic appeal of progressive narratives: an excessively sophisticated and even poetic use of language—investing words with an importance beyond what they ideally ought to carry (a phenomenon I have termed "semanticalism"). This may partly explain why some—or many—of the most "linguistically intelligent" individuals tend to identify politically with the Left...

Humanities professors, journalists, and artists—all professions with a strong ideological leaning toward the Left, and which are also more prone to exhibiting this verbal tilt...

ANOTHER group, and a stereotype "more recently" condemned by the media and other "traditional institutions" of the Western world...

What other group has been stereotyped—and for a much longer time in the past—as being "gifted in the art of lying"?? 

Yes, it is the Jews who have been persecuted for centuries—and, if those who feel strongly about this topic will forgive me, no persecution so historically extensive and constant occurs without some minimally logical reason. This holds true regardless of how unjust it may be to persecute an entire people without acknowledging exceptions or, at the very least, specifying the subgroups most closely linked to accusations—or even evidence—of criminal activity; it is akin to persecuting any Sicilian because of the Italian Mafia, which shares the same ethnic origin...

And—setting aside problematic, sweeping generalizations—the same potential indicators (drawn from everyday observations and psychometric data) suggesting a positive correlation between pathological lying and leftism also exist regarding this group, particularly its majority subgroup, the Ashkenazim. After all, Jews—especially their intellectual "elites"—have played a significant role in modern leftism, as well as in ideologies on the opposite end of the political spectrum, such as libertarianism. Even when they are not the original creators, they have actively participated in the philosophical distortion or warping of these ideologies—with rare, usually individual, exceptions that appear to seek enlightenment rather than distortion...

But why do they do this? 

Their very own asymmetric cognitive profile (verbal IQ << performance IQ) might explain—at least partially—the correlation found between pathological lying and "Gentiles" (such as many, or perhaps the majority, of self-declared leftists of other ethnicities or races). This could also, in part, offer a form of exoneration—assuming this is one of the countless cases that likely exist among us—regarding an inability to exercise full "free will" or reflective judgment. This arises from a specific cognitive profile reflecting a dominant pattern of brain organization that may favor lying over truth, or excessive linguistic complexity over a clearer, more objective use of language...

A complementary explanation is that, as part of an ancestral cultural reflex, they learn to organize and rally around narratives (and lies) crafted by their "elites"—narratives designed to advantage them over other human groups (indeed, the majority of them?). This mirrors the dynamic seen in virtually every human group, where only a minority manages to transcend instinctive and learned cultural impulses—as well as the social or tribal structures that validate these impulses as reliable paths to individual comfort and/or collective support. The difference here lies in their high level of organizational or political cohesion, geared toward a struggle for hegemony against "outsiders" and underpinned by superior average intelligence. This inevitably raises the question of the extent to which they—on average—actually believe in the very narratives and lies they project to deceive, confuse, or indoctrinate other groups...

Furthermore, it is interesting to note the political-organizational similarities between leftists and Jews; both operate like political-ideological sects—not unlike sects stemming from any other ideological background, including... of course, the many organizations..typically conservative religious organizations... Yet these "two"¹ differ from other existing sects in the nature of their beliefs and in the levels and types of cognitive profile they exhibit...

¹ Exceptionally close...

Displaying this cognitive profile (verbal IQ >> performance IQ) does not necessarily indicate that one suffers from pathological lying.

Possessing the ability to craft narratives or stories, or to argue a point, does not necessarily imply a progressive inability to refrain from lying or to distinguish lies from facts or truths. While there is a correlation—in that a typical pathological liar tends to be an excellent storyteller—it does not follow that everyone with "verbal intelligence" asymmetrically superior to their "general intelligence" (or IQ) suffers from this disorder. However, it is possible or even probable that there is a disproportionate number of pathological liars—or individuals falling somewhere on that disorder's spectrum—among those with this profile; most remain undiagnosed for the political reasons mentioned earlier in the text. They simply go undiagnosed due to political-ideological convenience, which does not mean they are not more prone to inventing, believing, and/or spreading lies. Indeed, this is another crucial point: pathological lying is not limited to fabricating lies and believing them; it also involves a heightened vulnerability to believing lies invented by others—especially those perceived as personally advantageous—thereby conflating them with "personal facts" and potentially permanently corrupting one's capacity for moral and intellectual discernment...

Returning briefly to the statement in the third subheading and adding another potential claim: the very profile associated with the ability to craft (often convincing) narratives may also be the one that, when combined with other equally.intrinsic factors—specifically "non-cognitive" ones (personality traits)—that are nonetheless at odds with the mythomaniac profile, contribute to producing an opposite profile. This profile is likely linked to a superior linguistic capacity specifically suited to the factual description of elements—both concrete and abstract. It is a fundamental characteristic** which, when coupled with an excessively subjectivist* psycho-cognitive profile, undergoes a corruption of its own: it shifts from functioning as the sole ideal pathway for the objective expansion of understanding regarding the world and its phenomena, to serving instead as a cognitive support for the compulsive rationalization of one's own beliefs...

* I have previously sought to distinguish between two broad groups of linguistic capacities: the aesthetic and the functional. The aesthetic is directly reflected in one's manner of writing and speaking, while the functional is directly reflected in the use of language to understand the world and communicate effectively. I have also noted in other texts that correlations between high verbal IQ and certain ideologies—such as left-wing views—tend to relate specifically to the aesthetic aspects of language; after all, it makes little logical sense for someone who is heavily ideologically biased—and thus far more prone to corrupting their perception of the world—to exhibit healthy development of that capacity, given its inevitable link to language...

** Or a type of bias contrary to the one that drives the systematization of reason as a model of thought—based on my view that rationality itself is a form of subjectivizing perception, albeit one directed toward objectivity and impartiality; the type most...paradoxical

¹

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/prefrontal-white-matter-in-pathological-liars/35A3EB7AA604A278BBEBDE6C1CB20DB2

²

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289624000709

Beyond the *g* factor: Verbal and performance IQ as predictors of sociopolitical attitudes

Highlights

•

Verbal IQ predicts political attitudes with twice the strength of performance IQ.

•

The importance of verbal IQ holds true even when comparing members of the same family.

•

Individuals with higher verbal aptitude are more likely to vote and report civic engagement.

•

The *g* factor is not the only component of cognitive abilities relevant to attitudes.

Abstract

Measures of intelligence predict sociopolitical attitudes and behaviors, such as liberalism, religiosity, and electoral participation. However, little is known about which cognitive abilities are responsible for these relationships. Using multiple cohorts from the *Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research*, we tested the predictive performance of different broad cognitive abilities. Through multiple regression comparing verbal IQ and performance IQ (derived from intelligence tests...

...Wechsler), we find that verbal IQ is a stronger predictor of voter turnout, civic engagement, traditionalism, and measures of ideology. On average, the correlation between verbal IQ and the sociopolitical attitudes analyzed is twice as strong as that observed with performance IQ. This pattern persists after controlling for educational attainment and after conducting a sibling-pair analysis. This implies that the relationship is neither fully mediated by education nor entirely confounded by upbringing or family environment factors. Positive and negative controls were employed to test the validity of our methodology. A key finding is that verbal IQ and performance IQ exhibit equivalent predictive power regarding the ICAR-16, a distinct measure of general intelligence. The results suggest that variations in cognitive abilities—independent (orthogonal) of general intelligence—influence sociopolitical attitudes and behaviors. The role of verbal ability in attitude formation may help explain the ideological leanings associated with specific professions. Its association with voter turnout and civic engagement suggests that individuals with higher verbal aptitude may exert greater influence on politics and society.

Why are young women (especially white women) and immigrants voting en masse for the Left?

Imagine living in a country that already boasts a significant level of "diversity," a high standard of living, and public policies ensuring extensive social welfare—perhaps a Germany or Sweden of the mid-21st century?

Do you need more?

More "diversity"?

Could any country sustain an indefinite influx of people over an equally indefinite period?

Basic logistics alone tell us the answer is no.

Imagine also noticing a steady rise in crime and other forms of incivility, an institutionalized animosity directed at you because of your race, and the progressive takeover of your city's social spaces by foreign cultural groups that are openly hostile toward you.

What would you do?

The most logical and rational reaction is to seek to understand what is actually happening. First, you would recognize the situation as negative, given the growing sense of insecurity and social unrest. Second, based on the facts you uncovered, you would begin to act logically. So, if you perceived a direct link between rising crime and excessive immigration—which is indeed the case—you would vote for the politicians or parties seeking to combat these issues when a major democratic election came around. It seems too obvious a course of action to ignore. And this is especially obvious if you are a woman—even more so if you are a white woman. The vast majority of right-wing and even far-right parties seek nothing more than to curb these excesses and return to a fully livable state of normalcy. Proposals such as: banning men with gender dysphoria—who identify socially as trans women—from participating in women's sports; vetoing further "thought crime" laws, like the misogyny law (as seen in Brazil); and closing borders to mass immigration—or simply not leaving them wide open for anyone to enter, as both the identity-politics Left and the radical Left desire...

If you are a young white woman living in a Western European country—especially a very wealthy one—your most basic rights are already guaranteed by law; you already have enough "diversity" to "celebrate"; you already have a welfare state that guarantees your labor rights—yet you still want more?

More of what?

It is a level of insanity that is hard to top...

2nd case of insanity or irrational stupidity: The logic of leaving a country where you no longer wanted to live for a country you chose to call home, only to vote to make that new country more like the one you left behind

I know that subheading is clunky, but it clearly illustrates the insanity of an immigrant's behavior: leaving their country of origin—not just due to poverty or war, but often out of genuine admiration for their chosen destination (its culture, its people)—only to vote for (left-wing) parties that aim to make that new country resemble the one they left. It is akin to a Mexican leaving Mexico to live in California, only to find Mexico itself transplanted there, slowly eroding the Anglo-Saxon culture—directly responsible for California's success—that existed before. And when I speak of culture, I’m not just talking about an abstract set of rules and behaviors, but about a population's capacity to absorb, accept, and/or practice them—because there is a clear correlation (an intersectional one, not mere coincidence) between ethnicity or race and the average statistical variation in behavioral tendencies (which are predominantly intrinsic)...

But that’s not the case! A Middle Eastern immigrant moves to Sweden and votes for the Left—the very faction that wants to import more people like him to live there. The result? The place where he lives and enjoys the benefits becomes increasingly like the place he left behind...

Is there any logic to be found here?

Tribal sentiment might explain it. Or the "strategic" mindset that "the more of us there are, the better." But wasn't it precisely the people who built and sustain that advanced society who were the "best" fit for it? If they become a minority or disappear, will "their people" be able to handle the job?... considering they can't even manage it in their own lands?

Chronic victimhood and hypocrisy are subtle expressions of an antisocial personality (on the psychopathy spectrum).

 Greed, avarice, and badmouthing others—when manifested chronically—are examples of behaviors indicating more serious character flaws. 

Victimhood and hypocrisy are two other examples—albeit more subtle ones—of such flaws; the former consists of exaggerating one's own situation and portraying oneself as a victim when one does not actually qualify as such, or even when one is in a virtually opposite position. This is because the intent behind playing the victim is not to resolve a victimization—which does not exist—but rather to garner privileges based on that alleged status. A case in point is the Black anti-racist activist who views himself as a perpetual victim of "structural racism," acting as though every limitation he faces—including those stemming from his own actions—is the fault of "evil white people" and that, in the name of justice, he deserves reparations or privileges. 

Hypocrisy, meanwhile, essentially involves preaching or positioning oneself visibly as morally superior, while acting in a manner that is—to varying degrees—the exact opposite in daily life. Take the anti-capitalist who loves money and enjoys what it "offers"—rather than seeking consistency between their words and their personal life, or at least being more generous toward others, for instance...

Consequently, due to the massive, suspicious, and orchestrated rise of identity-based leftism within corridors of power, there has been an institutionalized normalization of these two subtle yet characteristic forms of moral dishonesty—the maudlin kind that cloaks itself in beautiful or impassioned rhetoric about justice, empathy, and love, while concealing ulterior motives and intentions...

Further thoughts on the disconcerting paradox involving IQ, political-ideological affiliation, and rationality.

 What is expected of a person considered "more intelligent"?

That they know how to write "correctly," perform complex mathematical calculations, compare spatial dimensions and geometric shapes, and identify patterns in specific numerical sequences; that they learn more quickly and deeply about any topic that interests them; that they grasp facts and distinguish them from falsehoods; that they maintain a high density of thought without frequently contradicting themselves; that they demonstrate an ability to connect disparate ideas; that they know how to think both abstractly and concretely—or practically—and derive the best judgment from their analyses and evaluations, including in an adaptive sense... That is everything expected of such a person.

But what if this expectation is based on a mythology surrounding human intelligence and how it manifests in the most intelligent individuals? 

That seems to be precisely the case, for the primary and genuine impression one gets is that there is a multiplicity of "being intelligent"... 

A very popular, specific, and simplistic myth about "the most intelligent person" is that they must be "intelligent" in everything—or in as many areas as possible. And when this expectation is shattered (as it always is), any slip-up on their part—that is, by those identified as "most intelligent" based on criteria that are often superficial—is explained away by that very intelligence. For instance, if they hold certain political-ideological beliefs lacking philosophical or scientific backing, it is attributed to their thinking being too abstract, or to their being too idealistic, or to their intelligence allowing them to use superior intellectual faculties to convincingly rationalize their beliefs—or even to their simply acting shrewdly... Yet, in reality, someone who adopts foolish beliefs demonstrates a tendency toward foolishness themselves; being an excessively abstract thinker often implies a lack of practicality; being highly idealistic may mean harboring unrealistic expectations about the world; rationalizing one's beliefs—especially erroneous ones—instead of rethinking them suggests overconfidence; and frequently acting with shrewdness may indicate more serious character flaws... 

The fact is, there are many ways to be "intelligent," and given the logic of human cognitive complexity and the anecdotally observed diversity of how intelligence manifests across individuals and groups, it is highly unlikely that there is only one type of "most intelligent" person. Whether it is a matter of standing out through greater creativity, shrewdness, superior thinking, or the ability to absorb vast amounts of information and knowledge—or a combination of these traits in varying profiles—or perhaps the development of a specific talent: it could be a sport or even an activity related to one's social environment; it could even be about being a great lover or an excellent cook... Just as there are multiple human ways of being stupid, idiotic, or inept—mirroring the opposite diversity...

What has also solidified as a disconcerting fact is that those who excel academically have a high risk of failing to develop into rationally intelligent thinkers over the course of their lives. This is corroborated by a body of studies showing a positive correlation between high IQ scores—especially in the verbal domain—and a political and ideological identification with the Left¹. After all, adhering predominantly or significantly to so-called progressive beliefs, ideas, and thoughts is not merely a matter of "choosing a side." It is not just another ideological package, of which there are so many. If these particular beliefs, ideas, and thoughts consist largely of various forms of delusion—factual distortions; logical and moral fallacies; arguments based on emotional blackmail; moral double standards or extreme selectivity regarding outrage and empathy; the falsification of evidence; intellectual pretentiousness... In short, it acts as a powerful "rational intelligence test" that can reveal just how far one has strayed from reason; how fallacious, contradictory, inconsistent, and subjectively biased one is... And it is not only the Left that presents senseless ideas or thoughts—far from it. However, the Left displays a consistency and systematic depth of rational deficiency comparable to religious fundamentalism, manifesting precisely as a form of "secular fundamentalism" with the same extreme level of dogmatism and epistemic subjectivism found in its older, traditional counterpart... Yet, religious fundamentalism is negatively correlated with high IQ², which makes perfect sense...

¹ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615000136https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39130356/

https://www.uni-saarland.de/en/news/gifted-men-exhibit-lower-levels-of-conservatism-compared-to-their-average-intelligence-counterparts-45508.html

² https://revistaplaneta.com.br/ateus-sao-mais-inteligentes-que-religiosos-entenda-o-que-diz-novo-estudo

But it is not just a matter of being more irrational; it is about what that actually implies. After all, one of the most important functions of intelligence is the ability to have at least a minimal understanding of the world one lives in, and that requires realism. So, even though it matters to be "good" at math, writing, and visual-spatial tasks—or to possess specific talents—when it comes to the most important thing of all (the basic ability to understand the world one inhabits), it seems common for some, or even many, of the most talented or intelligent individuals to be exceptionally poor at it. That constitutes a major paradox!

But hold on—there might be a logical explanation, or several...

Based on the hypotheses I’ve developed to explain this, here are a few:

1. Verbal IQ explaining a significant part of the paradox

Recently, I asked ChatGPT to estimate my verbal intelligence (IQ) based on my texts and poetry. It arrived at an estimate of 120–130, noting that it couldn't assign a higher score because I don't typically use difficult or rare words in my writing. This is quite revealing, as it shows that much of what is considered "verbal-linguistic intelligence" from a psychometric perspective is essentially just the size and level of "sophistication" of one's vocabulary.

But what does that have to do with being—or becoming—more realistic and, consequently, wiser about the world? 

The answer is, first and foremost, "nothing." If this type of knowledge is more aesthetic than directly functional in nature... then, while standardizing language is important to prevent it from splintering into a multitude of ways of speaking and writing, that does not change the fact that it remains a kind of "aesthetic of convention"—something arbitrarily deemed "right" or "wrong" by a specific group at a specific time and place. This may explain the positive correlation between secular fundamentalism—well represented by leftist beliefs—and high verbal IQ, if a significant portion of what is deemed "linguistic intelligence" in psychometric assessments is merely the ability to master the standard form of a language, and nothing more. Regarding the most important functions of language—effective communication and factual comprehension—there is no truly standardized assessment based on real-world contexts and accuracy; yet, judging by how many self-described progressives think and behave, they do not appear to exhibit an equally positive correlation regarding these functions or facets—in fact, the opposite may well be the case.

It is also worth noting the aesthetic-linguistic appeal of leftist narratives—specifically, the tendency to over-empower the word itself. Words are elevated beyond their proper role—serving merely as symbols for the elements or phenomena they represent—to being treated as equal to, or even more important than, the reality they symbolize. A prime example is the entire argumentative framework adopted by the radical trans movement to deconstruct long-accepted and firmly established biological concepts regarding sexuality.

2. IQ itself as an invalid measure of rational capacity

While most highly rational individuals tend to score high on IQ tests (or at least on specific subtests), "having" a high IQ does not necessarily cause high rational capacity. This is evidenced by the disproportionate number of individuals who score high on these tests yet display poor judgment or a lack of realism—as seen, for instance, in the positive correlation between high IQ and left-wing political-ideological affiliation. And one need not limit oneself to that, given the clearly positive correlation between high IQ and economic liberalism³—an ideology advocating for a minimal state and/or market dominance over society, which proved highly dysfunctional when fully adopted (notably in the US during the 1920s), contributing to the 1929 crash: the worst economic crisis in the history of capitalism.

³ https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/01/intelligence_ma_1.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289618300552

A high IQ does not guarantee creative genius, nor high rational or emotional capacity⁴. Even if it correlates with these traits⁴, correlation is not causation—a maxim that holds particularly true here, given that IQ itself is the result of a test (an effect) rather than a cause.

What drives high creative achievement—even though it is linked to cognitive potential, which is relatively well-measured by traditional intelligence tests—is the very existence of a disposition of this nature, which..is not the same as stating that they are exactly the same thing. And there is already a growing body of evidence from related fields positively corroborating the confirmation of a distinct neurological and cognitive nature inherent to creativity⁵...

⁴ https://www.psymeetsocial.com/blog/artigos/caracteristicas-de-pessoas-criativas

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=126458

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289624000898

(This article shows a significant correlation between IQ and a so-called "rationality test," which is actually just another cognitive test analyzing "logical thinking" based on questions about hypothetical scenarios removed from real-world contexts—a point I critique further down in this text).

⁵ https://theconversation.com/new-study-reveals-why-some-people-are-more-creative-than-others-90065

The same can be said of rationality: it constitutes its own domain rather than being merely or exclusively a discrete offshoot of a broader construct like intelligence. Regarding both capacities, the majority of those who score highly on intelligence tests—including school and academic grades—do not go on to become geniuses or particularly rational individuals. This is generally not due to a lack of opportunities, life paths leading to other interests, or other reasons that might explain this asymmetry without challenging the unitary myth of intelligence or talent; rather, it is simply due to a normal or low expression of these traits. When these traits do manifest more prominently, they tend to do so in an intense, obsessive, and practically uncontrollable manner, driven by powerful intrinsic motivation... 

3. Giftedness, talent, and genius are not rationality.

They could be, if the myth of human intelligence mentioned at the very beginning were true. In reality, however, our intelligence is not merely complex in itself—offering a wide range of potentialities—but also tends to be distributed differently among us, including its highest expressions. While it is easy to grasp that a musically gifted person is not necessarily academically intelligent, the same applies to rational capacity. Yet, it seems harder to apply this logic to the intellectually gifted; it stands to reason that someone with high potential for absorbing knowledge and information should also excel at evaluating what they absorb—demonstrating equal excellence in reasoning or discernment.

However, a high IQ is not synonymous with intellectual and moral infallibility.

Most individuals traditionally considered gifted can be just as flawed as any other group of people. They are not superhuman simply because they possess greater capacity or potential; after all, human intelligence is not limited to memorizing information or absorbing knowledge, but also involves evaluating what is being memorized or absorbed—as well as one's own thoughts and actions. That is why metacognition, self-awareness, self-knowledge, and qualities such as intellectual honesty and humility are fundamental to the development of rational intelligence. Indeed, many individuals gifted with high "quantitative" cognitive abilities do not display the same high level of ability in more qualitative facets—such as rationality itself. It seems counterintuitive, but it merely shows that human populations have not evolved without diversifying into groups that are more cognitively specialized...

4. Rationality is somewhat detached from the historical and cultural dynamics of human cognitive evolution.

Most human beings are not evolutionarily inclined to prioritize the pursuit of objective, impartial truth in their lives; instead, they focus on what they determine to be "their truths"—usually reflections of themselves and their intrinsic traits, shaped by interaction with their environment (which, in turn, generates their lived experiences and memories). They are also certainly more inclined to adapt to their social environment, which often makes the systematic expression of rationality the less obvious choice. This is also because they adapt to the situation or the moment without keeping an ideal state in mind; essentially, they accept their current reality as *the* reality, even if the environment is precarious in terms of both its epistemic and instrumental structures. In other words, typical adaptation is often precarious, lacking a foundation of constant rational analysis regarding what is perceived and what is done. Very few humans seem to actually think (frequently) before living, surviving, and adapting. For many, "thinking" amounts to "rationalizing" actions already taken—thinking after the acts, primarily to justify them. And even among those who do engage in such thought, many may still succumb to the pressures of immediate urgency and the immediate space falling somewhere between the ideal and the precarious—yet efficient (in the short term)—is achieved... 

This impulse to take one's own self-projection—of beliefs, expectations, and values, as well as personality/temperament, intelligence, or other exhibited traits—as a faithful reflection of reality is certainly not limited to human beings; it constitutes a universal *modus operandi* for all forms of life. This projection of one's own subjectivity is far more ancient, profound, and—consequently—powerful than rationality, which represents an opposing tendency. Yet, even high rational capacity itself may be merely another form of subjective projection, paradoxically manifesting as an "anti-bias bias." Regardless of whether rationality is simply another type of subjective self-projection (albeit an inherently paradoxical one) or an evolution beyond it, the prevalence of subjectivism among humans extends to the "most intelligent" members of our species. Indeed, this tendency often manifests even more intensely in such individuals precisely because their superior quantitative cognitive abilities lead many of them to be overconfident in their beliefs and their own moral and intellectual discernment—that is, their rationality. In other words, it is intelligence acting against itself, or the intellectual qualities of these individuals working in a contradictory manner: as they reinforce themselves, they widen the gap regarding their own qualitative deficiencies—including that very capacity for rationality. In short, a cognitive exceptionality other than high rational capacity itself can amplify the potential for irrationality—a scenario highly likely to occur when a deficiency in that rational capacity is perceived.

Regarding social adaptation, even the "most intelligent" individuals—unless they become fanatical believers in the moral codes or prevailing common sense of their era and social circles—tend to feel immense pressure to conform. This conformity may manifest as silent submission or explicit endorsement, often rooted in pragmatic cynicism. Furthermore, because they are the most active participants in centers of power—such as media, government, and education—these institutions become natural magnets for them, forming a significant portion of their "elites." Adapting to a social environment is, in itself, an unequivocal sign of intelligence. Yet, in human contexts, this often entails believing in and endorsing a predominance of lies and half-truths—the very antithesis of rational principle.

"Being epistemically irrational as a primary adaptive strategy"

Historically, opposing tyrannical governments or social systems—an idealistic yet rational course of action—has proven more dangerous than submitting to them through overt conformity. 

High rational capacity—however virtuous and valuable it may be, especially in theory—is a phenotypic anomaly of human intelligence. Its expression, as demonstrated, comes with no significant guarantee of personal benefit; indeed, it tends to expose those who develop it to greater risk when facing political groups vying for power or those already achieving a significant level of hegemony... 

The only scenario within a social environment where high rational capacity can serve a truly beneficial and adaptive purpose is if the individual remains silent most of the time regarding their superior understanding or knowledge of the world—insights that face serious constraints regarding open sharing—while merely mimicking socially acceptable thoughts and behaviors to convince others they are just like them. Yet, it seems far more common for the highly rational or sensible person to find themselves unable to hold back once they perceive the deeply problematic nature of the society they inhabit. This is likely due to their ability to predict future outcomes based on current events, as well as a strong drive to view their world and its timescales beyond the short-term and subjective bias—often prioritizing the long-term and the objective... After all, maintaining such a convincing facade—as in the proposed "ideal" scenario—requires emotional detachment from facts and other people, and learning to act with cold cynicism... This is an arduous task—perhaps impossible—for most who reach the highest levels of good sense, given that such rationality is often intimately linked to the capacity for empathy and compassion—a kind of heightened sensitivity to both truth and falsehood, akin to a developed sense... And this imperative urge to perceive truths—whether subjective or objective—applies just as much to the irrational and the "normal" as it does to the highly rational: the very personality traits and of qualitative cognition (or that which, in constant interaction with quantitative traits, gives rise to the latter), manifesting as a type of orientation (very similar to "sexual orientation") rather than a choice free from conditioning—which is what many believe constitutes the mythical "free will"... The difference lies in the degree of subjective bias involved in determining what is considered truth or falsehood, or—as mentioned above—in the "type of dominant bias": that of reason, or a typical or common one?

That is why there appears to be a constant conflict between rationality and social adaptation—that is, between an emerging, more evolved (yet essentially simple) type of intelligence that is uniquely human, and a much more ancient type; And, in evolutionary terms, one might even speculate whether high rational capacity has been selected against precisely because those who express it tend to be the ones who rebel against tyrannical governments or predominantly irrational ideological systems—and are the first to be identified and eliminated from the social sphere. Thus, with each human generation, the most rational individuals—on average or disproportionately—end up on the margins of society, less likely to follow a standard life cycle (including reproduction with like-minded peers). Consequently, there is no continuous, cumulative reinforcement of their psycho-cognitive phenotype—given the reality of how complex intrinsic traits are inherited through recombination—which contributes to keeping them a minority.

When viewed from multiple perspectives (a key method of rationality itself), being more rational—even if it means being more realistic and thus better understanding the world one inhabits—often amounts to acting imprudently in the context of everyday social adaptation. It means placing oneself at a dangerous remove from the most advantageous position for fitting into one’s environment; precisely because a rational person—skilled at identifying and solving problems—tends to point out issues rather than adopting a stance of complicity, convenience, or indifference. After all, throughout our history, the "imprudent" individual has often been the truly sensible one within most human social environments.

Even among the "most intelligent"—based on traditional psychometric and academic assessments—it appears that the majority who conform to the prevailing moral and structural order do not do so merely out of cunning, but also for personal reasons beyond their full control; a fact that, in any case, reflects a deficit in rationality.

Many individuals with high IQs are individualistic.

They act out of self-interest, caring little whether their actions or the causes they champion might harm the society they live in over the long term. The positive correlation between high IQ and leftism—which advocates for a kind of complex individualism (identity pluralism in personal behavior, with exceptions, yet collectivist in thought)—as well as with economic liberalism, may share a common thread: the tendency of the "most intelligent" to be individualistic. While a rational person tends to reach sensible conclusions where their own interests are not always prioritized—seeking a balance between submitting to the collective and overemphasizing the self—it seems common among the "most intelligent" (by psychometric and academic standards) to prioritize themselves without restraint. Furthermore, this individualistic selfishness, which corrupts moral and intellectual judgment, tends to be rooted in a simplistic, short-term perspective. That is why many of these individuals—even the "most intelligent" ones—end up harming themselves in the medium and long term; they see and prioritize only their immediate interests rather than broadening their worldview beyond their own navels. It also seems common for these selfish "highly intelligent" individuals to mask their individualism with seemingly altruistic political measures or arguments that sound intelligent. Ultimately, there appears to be a strong tendency: the greater the cognitive potential, the greater the potential for self-rationalization—justifying one's own beliefs and behaviors regardless of whether they are actually sensible or rational.

Rationality—and specifically high rational capacity—could be seen, in essence, as a simplified evolution of intelligence, whereas other cognitive capacities represent more marginal manifestations.

In other words, high capacity is an optimized version of perceptual and adaptive ability; however, because the human world has been dominated by the irrationality of tyrannical governments, it proves less functional in practice...

Another explanation is that, despite being essentially simplified (perhaps the most appropriate path given the excessive complexity of human intelligence itself), high rational capacity express a transcendent evolution of the perception typically contextualized by—or specialized for—the adaptive environment (a perception universally determined since the earliest stirrings of terrestrial life). The individual possessing this trait exhibits a more robust development of one of our species' most unique cognitive exceptionalities: the capacity to transcend—albeit not entirely—one's own subjectivity, thereby sustaining interest in aspects of reality that are primarily unrelated to our immediate survival and adaptation needs. Yet, as our species has continuously evolved closer to the typical mode of adaptation... While the majority remains in a state of existential and perceptual provincialism—regardless of cognitive potential—a minority has attained broader levels of perceptual capacity and understanding of the world, without succumbing to the distractions, traps, or temptations inherent in the very complexity of our intelligence. I have previously coined terms to describe these differences in state or level—specifically, levels of consciousness: *realism* (or the animal level), *surrealism* (or the typical/ideological human level), and *hyperrealism* (or the exceptional/philosophical human level).

5. Rationality is not the same as erudition.

Realism does not require a vast accumulation of knowledge; rather, it entails grounding oneself in what matters most, aiming for a more accurate understanding of the world without necessarily requiring depth or exhaustive detail. One need not know a great deal to have a solid grasp of unfolding events—influences, structures, methods, and so on. It is not necessary to amass a wealth of information on Brazilian or American geopolitics to form impartial, objective assessments of them (for instance).

Rationality is less about accumulating information and more about the ability to "separate the good beans from the bad" (with beans representing pieces of information in this analogy). And this does not necessarily require high ability—at least not the kind traditionally recognized—which may explain its modest correlation with high IQ (not to be confused with scores on logical reasoning tests, which are not the same as rationality). In fact, it takes far more ingenuity to perform the mental gymnastics needed to rationalize one's own beliefs—especially the most misguided ones—than to act like the poor boy pointing out the naked king in the famous children's tale "The Emperor's New Clothes"... One does not need a PhD to know that human races exist, that people exhibit differences in behavior and intelligence, and that men and women are biological realities rather than merely or primarily cultural constructs... Obviously, moving beyond merely identifying these as facts to actually explaining them requires the development of reasoning. Even so, it is not such an arduous task that it demands deep specialization. For rationality is more—or primarily—about recognizing facts, and doing so consistently, than it is about delving deeply into that recognition.

In fact, based on the basic principle that quality beats quantity, amassing too much information can actually clutter one's thinking. Moreover, when it comes to rationality, the quality of the information matters more than the sheer volume of memorized data.

It is also interesting to consider that someone who ventures into highly complex knowledge might be at greater risk of losing sight of the most basic knowledge—the kind that most influences our lives and is essential to rational realism. A potentially plausible explanation is that a rational person acts like a generalist or holistic thinker, specializing in this fundamental knowledge—which is the most constant and influential in our lives, and thus most relevant to a realistic or accurate understanding of the world—whereas a scientific genius is someone who delves deeply into specific fields of human knowledge. In certain comparative contexts, rationality stands as the opposite of creativity—and, by extension, of genius—even though its highest expression constitutes an intellectual rarity in its own right. If the creative genius is about "seeing beyond," the rational mind is about "seeing only what is right there."

Or, as I have previously noted—particularly regarding philosophy and the most authentic philosopher—rational intelligence, being centered on judgment, might be described as a "specialization of generalization," given that we pass judgment on everything we do, from thought to action...

The rational individual simply points to a fact without denying it based on feelings or personal convictions—or at least learns to avoid such denial as much as possible. In cognitive terms, rationality is merely the expansion of our objective perception beyond the sensory realm and into the abstract world: statistics, generalizations, comparisons, and so forth...

Rationality appears to be more psychologically demanding......more often driven by the temptation to distort the perception of reality to soothe one's own feelings than by cognitive factors—since direct factual perception, especially of obvious facts, tends to be far simpler than the construction of the complex lies surrounding them.

6. Rationality is human intelligence in real-time, operating at its peak or in its entirety, whereas traditional methods assess parts of a whole without regard for context.

I love using the driving test—which anyone seeking a license must take—as a comparison for cognitive tests and real-world, everyday demonstrations of intelligence. It serves as an excellent illustration: a test remains just a test, whereas the most decisive way to verify capability, risk, or any other variable is through the actual experience of performing the task itself.

Consequently, there is often a disparity among those who score highly on cognitive tests and other comparative assessments of intelligence; their performance on these tests does not always align with the ongoing demonstration of their intelligence—specifically, how they think and behave throughout their lives. This is precisely because a test differs from a real-world scenario; assessing isolated capabilities out of context is not the same as evaluating how those capabilities manifest in reality, through continuous interaction and within actual situations. The explanation for this potential paradox is the same one that helps us understand why excellent drivers—who pass their driving tests with flying colors—can turn into reckless, dangerous drivers on the streets and roads of everyday life. Yet, excessive self-confidence is not merely a problematic personality trait; human intelligence does not operate in a vacuum—indeed, personality itself is an integral part of it. The issue lies in defining intelligence solely as technical capability—a view that seems common among many specialists studying these topics. 

One of the most relevant tests for demonstrating how disconnected IQ tests can be from rational intelligence in real-world practice is the task of detecting logical patterns in numerical sequences or geometric shapes. While these tests may successfully measure such a capacity within the testing environment, the results do not seem to translate effectively to the experience of actual reality. Just as a brilliant chess strategist is not necessarily a great military or political strategist, an isolated or specific ability does not automatically replicate in a real-world scenario that demands the simultaneous engagement of multiple capabilities. Real life involves more than just moving pieces on a board; it requires navigating a series of situations within a constantly shifting context—dealing with social pressure, making cost-benefit decisions, maintaining emotional control... Returning to pattern-detection tests: if they were contextualized in the real world, the focus would not be merely—or even primarily—on spotting patterns in specific number sequences or shapes. Instead, it would be about constructing and establishing maps of reality where each piece represents a relevant fact, and each fact holds a hierarchical position within those maps. This requires access to a range of cognitive and non-cognitive resources: self-awareness to gauge one’s own competence in addressing a given topic; emotional self-control to keep the impulse to impose personal beliefs and expectations in check; the ability to reason without resorting to logical fallacies... Yet, the simple ability to distinguish fact from falsehood would suffice—were it not for the ethical or moral dimension of not only recognizing the truth but also defending it. It is precisely here that, for many of these so-called "most intelligent" individuals—regardless of the specific causal factors involved—personal commitment to reason is viewed not only as entirely optional but often as more detrimental than beneficial. 

Conclusion

This text compiles my previous shorter writings and thoughts regarding the greatest paradox surrounding IQ and its correlations: the observation—in the real world—of only a moderate relationship between high scores on cognitive tests and high rational capacity, whereas one would logically expect a significant link. I believe all the hypotheses presented are relevant to explaining this paradox, each offering a complementary perspective or analytical angle. They demonstrate that IQ tests—and similar assessments, such as school exams—measure certain aspects of human intelligence but do not directly or precisely measure other crucial aspects, such as rationality; this alone helps explain why the two do not correlate more strongly. Anecdotally, there appears to be a disproportionate number of "high-IQ" individuals who..exhibit deficiencies in rational capacity. This is especially true if the most accurate way to analyze such capacity is through the quality of an individual belief system—constructed and expressed over a lifetime—rather than through the tests that have been devised, which rely on questions regarding logical reasoning based on hypothetical scenarios or situations isolated from real-world contexts; that is, if rational capacity can only be assessed through the exercise of intelligence within genuine life experiences. 

Recognizing this contradiction is, in my view, crucial when discussing human intelligence; a truly objective understanding allows us to replace—with corresponding factual information—powerful myths about intelligence that have been passed down for generations, and to rethink much of what has been imposed as social or political policy based on those myths. Furthermore, understanding human rationality itself inevitably contributes to our comprehension of lived reality and to how we might improve what is arguably the most important function of intelligence.