"Your vote is worth the same as theirs."

 And a major problem with this primarily logical and correct thinking

Among the many weaknesses of a modern democratic system is the equivalence of importance of the individual vote, in which people with disparate levels of intelligence, most directly reflected in levels of general and technical knowledge, but also and especially in capacity for moral discernment, have exactly the same voting power. In other words, the vote of a chronically ignorant or foolish person is worth the same as the vote of another person who is in a completely opposite intellectual situation. But this is not the most correct way, because there should be a way to correctly systematize these individual differences and establish a differentiation in the weight of the vote at decisive moments, such as in elections or plebiscites; after all, the opinions of those who develop them in a more rationally adequate way are worth more than those who do not. It's quite simple. It would be the fairest thing. This would be yet another mechanism to control the most natural fallacy of democracy, which can turn it into a dystopia I've termed "democracism," that is, systematically considering the "opinion of a majority" as the "most correct opinion."

But there's a potentially major problem that hinders the practical viability of this reasoning, which would be, in a realistic scenario, the criteria used by those in power and motivated to establish these changes...

What I mentioned above seems to me the most correct: to have the criterion of rationality or common sense as the most important, as it is the most logically relevant in this discussion. However, it seems common, at least to me, to see on social media those who criticize the established equalization of individual voting power either not considering this criterion or leaving it vague about what it would be... It also seems common for many, driven by educationalist beliefs, to point to the level of "education" achieved as the most important criterion in this hypothetical change. However, being more "educated," precisely in the sense of having more years of schooling or being at higher levels in the hierarchy of the educational system, is far from automatically reflecting an individual's level of common sense. And this seems to be the most common thought: if the equalization of individual voting power is to be ended, then it should be done between those with and without a degree. But this is not just my opinion or supposed prejudice against academia, because, in fact, among the "more educated," there is a significant portion that, to begin with, should not have been awarded degrees or should not have been awarded degrees in the areas in which they "specialized." And that's without even getting into the capacity for moral. discernment. And this is especially true in the humanities, dominated by cliques of pseudoscientists and/or pseudo-intellectuals extremely biased to the left on the political-ideological spectrum. Therefore, ideally speaking, if the end of the equalization of individual voting power were instituted, the most important thing would not be to give more weight to the vote of those who "studied more" because, in reality, often this "studying more" does not mean that the person has acquired more wisdom, quite the opposite... Returning to the conclusive redundancy of this text, the ideal would be, based on a generalized analysis of people's rational capacity, better reflected in values, beliefs, and behaviors in the medium and long term, that the establishment of unequal weight to the individual vote be based on this criterion and not on any other less precise criterion for evaluating the capacities specifically required in this context, such as the superficiality of a typical academic "education"...

But how would that work??

If I have demonstrated, over time, that I am more sensible, the weight of my vote should be worth... twice or more the weight of a vote from someone who proves to be quite reckless. However, another major problem with the practical viability of this change is that there simply isn't any social system for evaluating these abilities and applying them in real political contexts, because no one has ever really thought about creating something like that, due to the enormous popularity of myths about human morality and intelligence that continue to perpetuate themselves as absolute truths of common sense, such as the idea that everyone has the same potential for free will... As a result, before even thinking about establishing a disparity in individual voting power, it would be necessary to create a system that could evaluate the required abilities; in other words, literally to create a new evaluative and selective culture of merit, and I have already written about this, that this meritocracy proposal would also be ideal in any type of professional evaluation, since it is precisely the absence of a filter for rationality and, therefore, also moral discernment, that leads to many professionals of very poor quality..and acting in the most diverse branches of social life and causing all sorts of harm. But for this to become possible, the existing social system itself would first have to be in the hands of precisely the most rationally competent, an ideal scenario quite distant from our current reality.

Even more directly: on the antagonistic relationship between capitalism and meritocracy

Ideal merit: each person is rewarded for how much they contribute to a society (except for individuals who cannot contribute for some health reason).

Current impediment: capitalism, because, in this socioeconomic system, most of those who are most rewarded are not, individually and proportionally, those who contribute the most to society.

For, according to ideal merit, the existence of super-rich and super-poor would not be possible, because most people, individually and proportionally, contribute in a more modest way to the society or community in which they live. Even individuals who are exceptionally proactive, who delegate a disproportionate amount of positive contributions (in a true or objective-impartial/rational sense), would still not be rewarded to the same extreme level as the ultra-rich of the past and of our era. So, what makes this false "mathematics" of greatly exaggerated proportions possible is monetary fiction, in which, through its fantasy, it "becomes possible" to multiply (imaginary) gains to the stratosphere. If, through proportional mathematics, rooted in the "world of realities", an ideally meritocratic society would come closer to the ideal of a socialist or communist society, at least in relation to its emphasis on social equality. In conclusion, it would not be wrong to think that monetary fiction has been used as the most important means of exponential accumulation of power, even as a way of imposing an ideology, structured in a hierarchy of symbols, in which ordinary individuals are indoctrinated to accept their condition of subordination and to treat as a concrete reality this distance forged between them and the top of the social pyramid, as if it were physically unattainable. Therefore, the capitalist system seems to maximize this very human tendency to treat symbols as concrete elements or real dimensions.

More voluntary provocations

 Kindness without rationality is not only stupidity but also insanity

The essence of kindness is still not being polite, as many seem to think, but being fair

Still, the kindest is the one who is the most altruistic and, at the same time, most fair. A rarity...

The rotten essence of capitalism is that anything goes for money

Conservatives love to blame the lack of religion in the Western world today for what they call "moral degeneration." But many of these cultural changes are the fault of capitalist ideological influence, particularly the greed to profit from any opportunity, including those considered the most "immoral"

Moral degeneration is not exclusive to the “left”. Centuries of traditionalist or conservative cultural hegemony, poverty, social inequalities, unfair prejudices, insane dominant ideologies and many wars do not let us lie

Are conservatives, on average, false collectivists?

If it is easy to say you are in favor of a society when its culture mirrors its way of thinking and living

The problem with living with people with low cognitive abilities is that they also tend to have low emotional intelligence.

And the problem with living with more intelligent people is that they also tend to have lower emotional intelligence compared to their cognitive abilities, but they are more implicit in this expression of disability than those with lower abilities, or more concealed.

Who defends an evildoer (objectively determined):

- Do you think you could be in the same situation as him, that you would act the same way (pure speculation)

- Thinks that we are all literally or absolutely equal and that he deserves to have the same rights (even after proving otherwise)

- And/or is equal to him

Much of the current policies of the so-called Western left are based on cheap emotional blackmail

Typically, the leftist looks for complex explanations for what is simpler, while the rightist looks for simple explanations for what is more complex.

Around every tyrant leader, there is a crowd of mercenaries and idiots

A typical way of relativizing basic concepts, such as truth and knowledge, is to produce unrealistic or extreme examples, such as "Sophie's Choice" situations.

Many understand emotional intelligence with empathy, control and charisma. But, emotional intelligence is also feeling sadness, anger or shyness at appropriate times or circumstances, sometimes long term or indefinitely.

Emotional intelligence can also be the option of distance

The most irrational tends to become more "nice" when they realize they are oppressed and the opposite when they realize they are more "empowered"

The most rational tends to become more fierce when they realize that they are objectively oppressed, but more moderate when they are in power (which, in adaptive terms, seems to be less logical)

Parents do not tend to like a child more because he appears to be more 'problematic' than the others, but just because they like him more, without having an explanation beyond that.

Parents who do not set adequate limits on their children are just as problematic as those who set too many limits.

Parents who do not notice conflicts between their children, especially conflicts that generate unfair treatment from one party to the other, are also not demonstrating excellence in this role.

In relation to knowledge about the most basic, true philosophy is sufficient, as it does not need science and its specialization of logic, its generalization is enough. For example, regarding religious belief, a legitimate philosopher does not need the scientific method to doubt its veracity.

The difference between the wisest and the most intelligent is such that it is comparable to the difference between two different species.

It is almost certain to say that the majority of self-declared philosophers are a combination of a failed artist (writer or poet) and a failed scientist, that is, they fail to be one or the other, in a genuine way, and end up becoming neither of the two. the two, rather than seeking to be exactly like a philosopher, a balanced combination between the emotional artist or the existentialist and the analytical scientist or the realist

When you write very well, you are capable, but also very likely to fill a large part of your writing with your disguised ego.

The belief that France is a great philosophical center is a likely symptom of pseudo-intellectualism

Cultural relativism and egalitarianism attract the most naive to the most perverse. But, generally, the most common type is a combination between the two, because every true fanatic is like this

As despicable as fanatics are false moderates

Self-declared left-wing or social justice individuals want to end all privileges, supposedly... But the only way to do so would be through the establishment of a fully meritocratic society, or an intellectocracy.

(my ideal way of society, the government of the wisest)

An exemplary profile of extreme irrationality is that of an individual who believes in God, Marx and Lamarck at the same time.

Believing that capitalism is an ideal model of meritocracy is another symptom

Ideological indoctrination (as opposed to education/philosophy) is a systematization of the fallacy of suppressed evidence

If collectivism is the sacrifice of the individual for the "good of society", is individualism the sacrifice of society for the "good of the individual"?

I have already said in other texts or thoughts that religion, like ideology, is a more intuitive form of self-therapy. However, I can also say that this self-therapy is a type of masking of the disorder that should be correctly treated. Such as, instead of telling a person with a psychotic disorder that their delusional thoughts are delusional, to agree with reality or part of reality that they have decided to distort to accommodate their personal issues divorced from the facts