On the golden age of German cinema, the 2000s

*Good Bye, Lenin!*; *The Lives of Others*; *Downfall*...

Back when I was much younger—barely out of my shell, just beginning to see with my own eyes, moving beyond the blind gaze of childhood...

I don't even recall which one I saw first. I know I first encountered them in advertisements—like time portals beckoning me toward an inevitable future.

A future that would one day become my own destiny.

Hoping a mother would never wake from her dream. Or that a country might save itself from the rubble. Or that a couple wouldn't be torn apart by a sudden blast.

Powerful, emotionally charged films that speak, above all, to the human condition—even within the most inhumane, humanity still lingers: dreams, feelings, anguish... Even when so much harm was done, so much hatred unleashed. They reveal the full complexity of a species captured in a handful of stories—mostlyfictional, yes, yet as real as any other story in our world...

They speak of a country—in that specific present—reflecting on its pasts. And for someone like me, who began watching them back then, in the 2000s—someone unable to help but form bonds of affection and identification with the eras and spaces translated by cinema—it is astonishing to observe that same country now. Its historical vein remains just as exposed, just as pulsating...

That same country—once split in two, once reunited under a single state totalitarianism—now persists under a banner of intolerance toward reason. It has transformed into the ultimate example of collective sacrifice, dissolving as an ethnicity, a culture, and a nation...

All while I watched them emerge—like posters for a new rock band—listening to early Coldplay hits in the sweet, naive semi-darkness of a teenager who knew only how to be the same child he had always been: quiet and observant. Unaware that the very concerns found in those films would become my own: the fear of brainwashing, of totalitarianism, of hatred, and of the worst of our species—which we, as a species, have been so exceptional and spectacular at demonstrating...

The monsters: hidden or revealed. The hope for better days. Disappointment as a form of realism. And all the pills—blue, red... Or even none at all, when the insomnia born of a longing for a fairer world turns the night into a confidant, alongside the first birds and the last crickets of the darkness.

Where have the fireflies of my childhood gone?

The city swallowed them up. Cell phone screens shine brighter. And the impressions left by films shift with the passage of time and the accumulation of life experiences. Art has always existed—and exists especially—for this purpose: to awaken us to something beyond the immediate moment, beyond this absolute present. To reach a past we never lived yet remain held hostage by in the present. To stir a consciousness that yearns for more than mere existence—more than just touch, scent, and murmur...

On a question, multiple perspectives, and rationality

 Is Kim Jong Un right about anything?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Renan Santos

It is clear that Renan Santos is the best-prepared candidate in the 2026 Brazilian elections, just as Ciro Gomes was in the previous two elections. The two share several traits: they are highly intelligent, present more concrete proposals, and—to varying degrees—represent a break from traditional politics. Unfortunately, Ciro Gomes was—and remains—too much of a leftist to demonstrate a freer, more sensible way of thinking without constantly paying homage to the cult of Marxism or even "modern" wokeism. Furthermore, he always cast himself as the "eternal best candidate," using language far too convoluted for the average Brazilian—or even for those with a more advanced grasp of complex texts and speech. The result? He swam all the way to shore only to drown right at the water's edge—twice. He ultimately proved more disappointing than he was promising as a rare, truly intelligent progressive politician with great proposals who was simply misunderstood.

Renan Santos is dangerously heading down the same dead-end path Ciro Gomes walked.

He got off on the wrong foot by opposing the end of the 6x1 work schedule. It is impossible to estimate just how many potential voters he lost—the damage could be significant. He looks more and more like a "right-wing Ciro," not just due to cognitive and psychological similarities, but also because he risks following the same trajectory: hope turning into disappointment. A major point in Renan's favor, however, is that—despite his high intelligence—he uses much more accessible language; he speaks not like an affected intellectual, but like a practical man.

Hopefully, he can rise above his current 10% standing to beat his right-wing rival—the ridiculous Flávio Bolsonaro—and make it to the runoff. It happened in Colombia. Every now and then, a political outsider manages to break through that barrier. The biggest current example is Donald Trump. The hardest part, of course, is for an outsider to survive within the system after winning the presidency. Yet, at this stage of the game—on the eve of the election season—an equally Herculean task for Renan will be breaking out of his "high-IQ" right-wing and non-leftist bubble to reach the average Brazilian right-winger, who remains deeply devoted to... Bolsonarism. Bolsonaro is all but finished. His children were never capable of even maintaining the same level of cheap yet effective populism that he adopted—and exploited—while an active politician and president... but there’s no harm in dreaming. It could happen here, too. Yet I also know that if Renan succeeds in these two feats, we will have to brace for one of two outcomes: either a civil war erupting more openly, or—much like in El Salvador—the emergence of a “$avior” figure like Bukele to douse the flames of chaos ignited by organized crime infiltration and official complicity...

I hate everything they are doing

But I despise even more those who believe their lies; those who sold themselves, body and soul...

If we belong to the same race and the same species, we exist in such distinct categories... much like a bacterium is to a mammal, or a dog is to a human being...

Our greatest difference lies in the most fundamental aspect: the act of perceiving—the moment prior to action itself... Of sensing, smelling, seeing, listening... And from there, moving to the cognition that understands and communicates through symbols, reaching the advanced stage where the mind hones its ability to anchor itself in what matters most: from the ultimate to the mundane, from the now to the tomorrow... in such a way that body and soul cease to be alienated from one another, morality and knowledge stop vying for territory, and the capacity to perceive a truth becomes as clear as recognizing a lie—free from ideologies shaping the paths of thought and judgment. Free from sentimentality and selective hysteria...

But it would be easier if they resembled a different species. If they had three eyes and little antennae. Or at least eight fingers on each hand and foot instead of five...

Could it be that I am an (((aspirant)))??

I do not stand with the crowd that feeds on their lies, amidst walls of distraction and lamentation... I am more like them, even though I disagree with their methods in every conceivable way... And it might be easier if I sought them out and helped myself from a position of height, rather than continuing to look up from below.

Regarding the end of the 6x1 work schedule and the criticism from the right

 It seems that the problem, if there is one, with ending the 6x1 work schedule (analogous to slavery), is that it would further increase employers' costs, especially those with "smaller economic stature," stifling the economy. However, as the right itself also criticizes, the real problem is not the worker or employee having the right to rest that is not limited to one day a week, as they seem to claim, but the high tax burden in Brazil, which "eats up" a large portion of the population's earnings. Therefore, instead of many on the right, stupidly and/or perversely, opposing the end of a cruel system of economic exploitation, perhaps simply because it is a left-wing agenda, they should focus on reducing taxes and, at the same time, supporting this measure, since both benefit workers and entrepreneurs, in short, the economy itself...

True Political Awareness

The 6x1 scale is about to fall. It will be the current president, Lula, in this April of 2026 when I write this text, who will finally launch the bill to be approved. This is a promise he and his party have made since his first term, back in 2002. And what does this mean??

That I, who should be directly benefited, will have to bow to the great "Brazilian helmsman" and be eternally grateful??

No. But that's what people on the left preach: that specific gratitude is the same as absolute submission. But when a politician serves the population, he is doing nothing more than his duty. He is doing the basics, which every democratically elected politician should do. Furthermore, it is necessary, intelligently, to analyze not only one measure taken by a politician, but in relation to everything he has already done, or at least, to greatly broaden the critical view of him. Preferably, a rational view: objective and impartial. So, based on this approach, it's impossible to treat the current president as the typical PT supporter wants us to treat him: as an extraordinary human being, above all criticism. It's quite clear, for those accustomed to reason, that the PT governments, which have already spanned two decades, present a prevalence of results ranging from ignoble to very negative (increased crime*, continued serious failures in education and health, practically epidemic political corruption...).

*One of the causes of which is the rigging of the judiciary with "anti-punitive professionals" or those forced to act according to laws imposed by politicians of this same ideology.

For true political awareness is precisely about placing oneself above, not below, the political class. Treating them as employees, for what they are, and not as kings, as many of them would like to be seen and treated...

Therefore, treating Lula the way he deserves, according to what he has done, is doing, and continues to do in politics. Tip: nothing close to "based on the perfection of legacy and actions," according to Lula supporters...

Therefore, it's a: "Oh, that's good, Lula... Finally..."

"Thank you (?)"

But...

"...for that reason alone, I will not vote for you in this election (in my case, again), since, if your actions are not limited only to the 'end of the 6x1 scale,' your legacy of more than twenty years of PT governments and, currently, until the first half of 2026, has been much worse than your propaganda."

Furthermore, to conclude, true political awareness requires that we become clever, in a good way, than the politicians we elect or who make up the political class of our country, and not the opposite. In short, to "empower" ourselves as ordinary citizens and not to "empower" them...

The Problem of Constant/Compulsory Appeal to Scientific Evidence in Promoting Public Policy

Specifically Regarding a Certain Issue

Hypothetically speaking, let's consider that:

"It has been found that some people who commit heinous crimes (out of pure sadism: without complex contexts that could justify them) show a capacity for resocialization."

In this hypothetical scenario, according to legitimate scientific evidence, disregarding the falsifications made by subtypes of pseudoscientists, such as a likely majority of sociologists, for example.

So, even if science achieves this result, it's not fair that someone who commits a heinous crime should have the right to reintegration into society simply because they showed good behavior during their incarceration and even afterward. After all, it's only fair that they remain in prison out of respect for the victim(s), their family, and friends... This is the most important point: an individual who commits a heinous crime, beyond all possible ambiguities, should not be imprisoned "only" because of the crime or the action, but also because of the person or being who was victimized. In other words, also "out of respect" for the victim, their memory, and those most tenderly associated with them. This is more of a moral and philosophical question than just a technical scientific one. Or perhaps the problem lies in the focus many place on: the capacity for resocialization rather than the severity of the crime and what is truly just, a kind of meta-justice: about what is just for the sake of being just, without falling into what seems to be a technicistic trap, at the very least, suspicious...

Black Helen of Troy, and How the Globalist "Elites" Want Us to Remain in the Battle of Polarization

 Divide and conquer is a very old tactic precisely because it is so effective, because in practice it translates into dividing the majority into groups that are cultivated to hate each other. First, differences are perceived. Then, they are capitalized on. Useful idiots and opportunists are very important in this process. They are organized to constantly fuel these divisions, keeping the majority very busy hating each other, while clever minorities remain on top, controlling the circus. Among this "playing one against the other," or stirring up discord, another example, among many, is Christopher Nolan's new film, in which a supposed poetic license is taken to alter the ethnicity of a character from Greek mythology, Helen of Troy: from white European to black African. The argument used is that, since it's a fictional character and there's no explicit mention of their racial characteristics, then this creative freedom would be entirely possible. But we, who are not inside the rottencist hives, know very well what it's about: continuing to humiliate the "white man," appropriating his culture and vandalizing his history, showing him that the intention* is to erase him, demographically and culturally. Furthermore, this Hollywood debacle, yet another one, also perfectly fuels the fire of polarization, and so the blame falls on: Black people, activists... but especially those behind the curtains of this "vampire theater": "globalist elites," "Zionists"...

On the correlation between "left-wing" governments and public finance imbalances, with a cognitive hypothesis

Across the world, from cold Canada to sweltering Rio de Janeiro, whether by the federal, state, or municipal government, the same pattern exists: when a "left-wing" government is elected, during its term, an imbalance in public finances tends to occur, even harming its chances of reelection.

But why does this happen?

One obvious reason: because "left-wing" governments spend more to expand benefits for the population, in contrast to the typically austere "right-wing" governments that dislike being generous to those they don't want.

However, two other reasons may also explain this pattern, which seems to be practically universal. First, the psychological, or rather psychiatric, explanation for existing, as I speculate,of a disproportion of individuals with certain varieties of antisocial disorders, such as machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, especially high-functioning psychopathy, who identify with the "left" on the political-ideological spectrum, and who are even more abundant among its politicians (not that they are not also common on the other side of the polarization trench, but that they tend to differ in the predominant type of antisocial personality). And this would also explain the high rates of corruption in these governments, as these individuals would take advantage of the "excessive" spending of public funds to embezzle funds for their own pockets.

The final explanation for this correlation between "left-wing" governments and imbalances in public finances is cognitive. This is essentially the correlation between identifying with the "left" on the political-ideological spectrum and presenting explicit or implicit deficits in mathematical abilities, or a cognitive profile biased toward verbal-linguistic abilities that, in any case, has a detrimental effect on the other abilities mentioned. Therefore, it would be a combination of an idealistic desire to promote or expand social "improvements," common among self-identified "leftists," which leads to greater spending when in power, plus a disproportionate number of psychopathic individuals among them who take advantage of this spending to commit acts of corruption with public funds, and, finally, the predominance of a psycho-cognitive profile biased toward the "human sciences" and/or deficient in economics/mathematics that can also contribute to the misuse of public accounts.

The Anti-Philosophy of the "Right"

 Why does the "right" so often turn its back on true wisdom?

In October 2025, the Brazilian government signaled some important steps to truly begin combating inequalities and/or social injustices in Brazil: expanding the income tax exemption to those earning up to R$5,000 (and some politicians have advocated for it to be expanded further, to R$10,000) and implementing tax reform, initially with tax increases for the super-rich. Next year, it also returned with the promise to outlaw the 6-for-1 work shift. And no, these measures were not adopted, nor even advocated, by the Brazilian "right; on the contrary... but this is its modus operandi in practically every country: almost always siding with those who already have privileges, often too much so; of almost always presenting itself as an obstacle to social improvements, even though it's not wrong about everything in this dispute with the "left." After all, despite being seemingly welcome, it's clear that it uses these measures to increase its popular support, not only or especially out of good intentions, although, a priori, there's nothing wrong with doing so if it's in line with the rules of the democratic game. Even if it's still a legalized vote-stealing exercise. Furthermore, these socioeconomic measures proposed by the "left" always seem to present points that haven't been well thought out. For example, the proposal to increase taxation on the wealthiest and how or how much of the taxes from this group will be diverted to the politicians themselves when or if implemented, given that they already divert a not insignificant portion of current revenue. But, regardless of these unaddressed points, even regardless of my own opinion of the Workers' Party (PT) and the left, which, in general, have never been good and will not improve with these measures, if, for me, who considers myself a true politicized person, we can never put politicians or parties on a pedestal for simply doing the basics they should always do when in power, it is clear that the "right" has great difficulty accepting or recognizing when there is common sense on the other side of the ideological trench. And the most important thing about this highlighted common sense that it denies is that it is always desirable to promote the well-being (a priori) of human beings, especially from an existentialist or philosophical perspective (recognizing that life, besides being essentially equal and fragile, is very likely also unique and finite). And even from a religious or more traditional perspective, I don't see how promoting quality of life cannot be reconciled with Christian values ​​or any other doctrine that preaches the love of one's "god."

But it didn't stop there, because along with the "right-wing" movement in the Brazilian Congress to fight for amnesty* for those involved in the near-coup of January 8, 2023, the same so-called conservative politicians launched and voted massively on a new law that was informally called the "shielding PEC"** and which clearly intends to expand mechanisms that make it difficult for them to be tried for corruption crimes. That's it!! The "right," always defending the "old order" by which it has hegemonically imposed itself for centuries, always failing to learn valuable lessons, even if from a more pragmatic perspective: to defeat its greatest antagonist by promoting policies that favor the interests of majority groups, but also of all relevant groups, instead of continuing to play this dirty game that has so characterized politics and failing to achieve important victories, and with aggravating factors. After all, an increasingly lost "right" gives way to a strengthened "left," equally or even more problematic, which differs from the other only in the types of serious problems it is more committed to causing...

* I don't have a solid opinion on this situation, since, although I primarily agree that those involved in this quasi-coup should be punished, I always contrast the "punitive" rigor of those who want, for the most part, a bunch of simpletons, to be punished for the vandalism at the Planalto Palace, with the defense of many of them for the adoption of anti-punitive measures regarding Criminality, especially for "criminals" from certain social and racial groups, politically relevant to the power projects of "left-wing" parties and ideological groups...

So, I think of the following contradiction: sentencing a "butcher shop owner" to 10 to 15 years in prison for destroying or damaging a "public domain artistic work" (which cannot be touched by the public??) during that "event" in Brasília, but, at the same time, an anti-punishment "judge" from the "left" (husband of a famous "philosopher" from the same "good" totalitarian hive) releases a criminal with 80 crimes on his record, and this is still not an isolated case in the Brazilian justice system.currently...

** PEC 3/21 is a proposed constitutional amendment that requires prior authorization, and a secret vote, from the Chamber of Deputies or the Senate for the Supreme Federal Court to prosecute a member of parliament, whether a representative or senator.

The "right" represents the old order. The left, however, represents no order at all. That is the question...

The "right" represents the old order of unjust privileges, absurd inequalities, monetary fiction, economic lies, mythology as wisdom, political corruption as the rule rather than the exception. But the "left" represents no order at all: destruction disguised as deconstruction, the inversion of values, regression as progress, contradiction as habit, demagoguery as science... That is the question.

Why isn't Charlie Kirk's murder similar to the murder of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson?

Charlie Kirk, an American conservative activist, was murdered during a presentation at a university in Utah. He was murdered because he was conservative, right-wing, pro-Israel, anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), pro-"big business"... In other words, he lost his life because of his beliefs. Even if I don't agree with many of them, being tolerant means precisely that: accepting that ideological differences exist. As insensitive and ignorant as it may seem to me for someone to defend Israel and not stand with the Palestinian people, for example, I still can't prevent that specific position from being adopted by others. I can lament that the average human being is so irregular in moral and rational terms. I can try to convince those who believe this or that, but I can't stop anyone from having their own beliefs and expressing them publicly.

(Although I believe that certain types of beliefs, positions, or modes of expression should be inhibited, as I already discussed in this text "The Only Rationally Acceptable Limit to Opinion Censorship: Absolute Dehumanization")

I would only agree with Charlie Kirk's political assassination if I were a person driven by unhealthy ideological fanaticism and believed that dissenters should be punished, imprisoned, or even eliminated. Although I also believe that, while tolerance of dissent is a rule of civility, there are more urgent contexts in which, at the very least, harsher measures may be necessary, or when the maximum limits of tolerance based on rational criteria—moral and intellectual—are being exceeded.

Aside from some "conspiracy theories" that have emerged to explain what happened in this case, the official police version is that Charlie's killer was a young man in his early 20s (Tyler Robinson) who seemed to identify as "left-wing." A relatively similar case of politically or ideologically motivated murder occurred in the US last year, also committed by a young man identified as Luigi Mangioni, who took the life of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson. But these primary similarities end there, because while Michael Kirk was an activist who made videos and lectures about his beliefs, ideas, and thoughts—some quite sensible, in line with common and necessary criticisms of certain "progressive" policies—Brian Thompson oversaw the systematic denial of payment for certain medical treatments to thousands of his health insurance company's members, while continuing to increase his profits by cutting these "costs." So, although his murder was a barbaric crime, it is more difficult to fully condemn it, precisely because of his cruelty in denying payment for the treatment of sick people out of pure greed. Both cases show how important the context is in determining the type and severity of the crime, because when justice is too slow to severely punish serious crimes that are committed, or even tolerant, especially if they are committed by "upper class" people and based on cruel legalities, typical of systems that are designed to favor "elite" interests, such as capitalism, certain acts of "taking justice into one's own hands" end up filling these gaps, doing the job that should be done by the "system."

I'm a far-centrist

 But not because my ideological and political views are exclusively centered on the center-right and center-left, if I consider them to be excessively diluted and therefore corrupt versions of the more traditional right and left. Rather, they are constituted by a likely majority of positions originating from the extremes of the political-ideological spectrum: from the anti-capitalism of the Marxist left to the perception of more intrinsic differences between individuals and human groups of the far right. This would, in my opinion, be true moderation or balance, by placing equal weights on the extremes or ends of both sides, if a scale doesn't balance by concentrating the weight on its center of gravity.

Still, I consider myself a progressive, simply because I consider myself an example of someone who seeks to strictly follow the most basic ideals or essence of progressivism, said to be the most direct heir to the Enlightenment movement, the search for reason rather than superstition, and for true human emancipation rather than oppression.

On the more "right-wing" interpretation of the fictional romance between Rose and Jack from the film Titanic (1997)

 The original synopsis of the fictional romance in James Cameron's film Titanic (1997) is about Rose, a young Englishwoman from the "elite" and the fiancée of an American industrialist, who falls in love with Jack, a talented but poor artist, during the tragic maiden voyage of the Titanic in April 1912; how she never forgot her love for him, many years after the ship sank and Jack's death. It is a simple but no less impactful love story that has moved and continues to move many people since the film was released. However, in recent years, a more "right-wing" interpretation of this romance has emerged, let's say, in which Rose is characterized as a spoiled young woman from the "elite" who falls in love with an unemployed bum, and is ungrateful because she does not reciprocate the "love" (toxic feeling of possession) of her rich fiancé; who keeps for herself a valuable jewel that she received from her ex-fiancé, and who, instead of donating it to charity, one night, when she returns to the place where the Titanic sank, on the Canadian coast, throws it into the sea. Not to mention the contempt she would feel for the man who lived with her all her life. So, Rose's nonconformity regarding the hypocrisy of the social environment in which she lived is reclassified as a defect and not a virtue of character; her love for Jack as impulsiveness and recklessness; her sentimental attachment to that jewel, her only memory of her great love, as selfishness, and the fact that she was unable to nurture the same affection for her ex-fiancé and her husband as ingratitude.

Yes! This is what some people have been thinking about this fictional novel, and it is not limited to it, since this impoverished emotional understanding seems to be the modus operandi of those who only think about money, status... and treat feelings, such as genuine love and friendship, without material interests, with coldness or suspicion. And that, even in relation to a fiction, they cannot understand or accept that there are people who sincerely fall in love with others, or who maintain true bonds of good feelings without greater pretensions, who do not treat life only as obligations, rules, rankings and accumulation of "wealth".

Furthermore, it is also a somewhat hypocritical interpretation, when dealing with people who tend to put money or material wealth above life, and who, if they had possession of a very expensive piece of jewelry, it is very likely that they would use it for themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump e o de sempre da "direita"/Trump and the usual of"right wing"

 Sabedoria? Ponderação? Razão? 

Não. O de sempre da "direita". Poucos acertos, alguns muito importantes, mas não adianta, se erra em quase todo o resto. E assim tem sido, desde antes que passou a chamar a direita de direita. 

Em seu início de segundo governo, Trump acerta nas questões imigratória e identitária, ainda que não sejam acertos perfeitos, sem defeitos, bem longe disso. Mas erra em todo resto. É a truculência e a indiferença da direita de sempre, sua marca registrada. Uma espécie de merda construtiva. Destroem, vandalizam, complicam, mas dão um jeito da merda "dar certo", no sentido de "dar lucros". Não para você ou eu, estúpido! Não é apenas a economia. Nunca é. E assim, nossas democracias continuam com as suas farsas, não apenas de um lado. O relativismo na palavra e na ação tem sido muito popular no espectro político...

Wisdom? Thoughtfulness? Reason?

No. The usual "right wing". A few hits, some very important, but it doesn't matter if he gets almost everything else wrong. And that's how it's been, since before we started calling the right wing the right wing.

At the beginning of his second term, Trump gets immigration and identity issues right, even though they're not perfect, flawless hits, far from it. But he gets everything else wrong. It's the usual right wing brutality and indifference, its trademark. A kind of constructive shit. They destroy, vandalize, complicate things, but they find a way to make shit "work", in the sense of "making a profit". Not for you or me, stupid! It's not just the economy. It never is. And so, our democracies continue with their farces, and not just on one side. Relativism in words and actions has been very popular across the political spectrum...

No cerne de todas as questões sociais, culturais, políticas, raciais.../At the heart of all social, cultural, political, racial issues...

 No cerne de todas as questões sociais, culturais, políticas, raciais...

ELES existem...

São eles que, disfarçados de direita, esquerda, extrema, moderada ou centro... De iluminados, obscuros, negros, brancos... Racistas, antirracistas, progressistas, conservadores... Muçulmanos, indianos, americanos... capitalistas, comunistas... Terroristas, pacifistas... São eles que, com os seus sorrisos falsos e suas atuações dignas de peças de teatro, jogam uns contra os outros, enquanto manipulam seus fantoches com dinheiro, poder, chantagem, corrupção... Que usam, mesmo muitos dos mais nobres como meios para os mesmos fins: "vingança", domínio absoluto... Os meios?? Confusão, destruição... E são muitos que os consideram os mais inteligentes de todos... Mas destruir civilizações é inteligente?? Se vingar de inocentes?? Genocídio ao invés de armistício?? Mentiras ao invés de verdades?? Isso é filosofia, sabedoria?? 

Uma tribo de supostos ESCOLHIDOS. Por Deus?? Por eles mesmos?? 

Mas que dedo mais podre. 

Quando é que irá finalmente evoluir, humanidade?? 

At the heart of all social, cultural, political, racial issues...

THEY exist...

They are the ones who, disguised as right, left, extreme, moderate or center... As enlightened, obscure, black, white... Racists, anti-racists, progressives, conservatives... Muslims, Indians, Americans... capitalists, communists... Terrorists, pacifists... They are the ones who, with their false smiles and their performances worthy of plays, play one against the other, while manipulating their puppets with money, power, blackmail, corruption... Who use even many of the noblest as means to the same ends: "revenge", absolute domination... The means?? Confusion, destruction... And there are many who consider them the most intelligent of all... But is destroying civilizations intelligent?? Taking revenge on innocents?? Genocide instead of armistice?? Lies instead of truths?? Is this philosophy, wisdom??

A tribe of supposed CHOSEN ONES. For God's sake?? For themselves??

What a rotten finger.

When will humanity finally evolve??

"Trump é ruim, mas Kamala é boa" (um teste específico de inteligência emocional/ingenuidade) /"Trump is bad, but Kamala is good" (a specific test of emotional intelligence/naivety)

 Que Donald Trump está longe de ser o melhor ser humano do mundo, isso é muito óbvio. Agora, que Kamala Harris também não se qualifica nessa categoria e, nesse sentido, se equipara a Trump, pode não tão ser evidente assim. De qualquer maneira, é perfeitamente possível compilar evidências de que essa mulher também não tem caráter (desprezando que, na atual conjuntura política dos EUA e do mundo ocidental, Trump acabaria caindo em uma posição política ou elegível de "menos pior" se comparado a ela), de que ela, tal como é típico de sua trupe ideológica, se passa de boa samaritana, defensora dos pobres e oprimidos, mas, na verdade, é uma hipócrita profissional, carreirista política dedicada (do tipo que já está há muitos anos mamando nas tetas do governo/estado americano), além de também não apresentar intelecto suficiente para administrar uma cidade, estado ou nação, se defende muitas políticas públicas claramente problemáticas que não se baseiam em evidências, fatos ou razão, que não resolvem, mas causam novos problemas, que são injustas... 

Portanto, é possível por esses dois analisar o nível de inteligência emocional e que também pode ser um teste específico de capacidade racional, de julgamento, em que julgar o caráter (personalidade, histórico, intencionalidade...) de Trump, um homem de negócios tipicamente ganancioso e egoísta, parece mais fácil do que fazê-lo com Kamala. Mas conseguir perceber o que está além das aparências é um teste mais robusto de inteligência, não apenas de inteligência emocional, e nesse teste, quem julga Kamala como muito melhor que Trump, ou até como uma pessoa conclusivamente de boa índole, está demonstrando ter um alto nível de ingenuidade, que talvez possa indicar um cenário pessoal mais generalizado, em que as aparências tendem a enganar mais frequentemente. É a diferença de apenas constatar o que se vê, com a necessidade de ter um maior esmero e ver, não o que se vê de primário ("eu sou a favor da solidariedade com imigrantes e refugiados"), mas no que não se revela em um primeiro olhar (fez sua carreira política com base no vitimismo identitário eleitoreiro do "vote em mim, porque sou uma mulher de cor" e as políticas que defende, mesmo se primariamente bem intencionadas, são radicais, extremistas ou imprudentes, como a de imigração em massa / são negacionistas quanto às evidências históricas e atuais do quão problemático pode ser o multiculturalismo; se baseiam em falácias morais e/ou chantagens emocionais, e por isso, causam transtornos ou problemas, especialmente para as classes menos abonadas. Então, é fácil ser a favor delas quando se vive longe dos problemas importados, quando se vive no privilégio, como essa Kamala, diga-se, sempre viveu). 

Como conclusão, se você só consegue detectar mal caráter quando está explícito, é provável que tenha uma inteligência emocional no nível de uma criança, subdesenvolvido ou precário, específico às capacidades de detecção de engano ou mentira e de julgamento de intenção ou índole...

Pois é a partir desse teste que também se percebe o quão entrelaçadas ambas a inteligência emocional e a racionalidade costumam estar.

 

That Donald Trump is far from being the best human being in the world is quite obvious. Now, that Kamala Harris also does not qualify in this category and, in this sense, is on par with Trump, may not be so obvious. In any case, it is perfectly possible to compile evidence that this woman also has no character (ignoring that, in the current political situation in the US and the Western world, Trump would end up falling into a political or elective position of "least worst" compared to her), that she, as is typical of her ideological troupe, pretends to be a good Samaritan, a defender of the poor and oppressed, but, in reality, is a professional hypocrite, a dedicated political careerist (the kind that has been sucking on the teat of the American government/state for many years), in addition to not having enough intellect to run a city, state or nation, and defending many clearly problematic public policies that are not based on evidence, facts or reason, that do not solve, but create new problems, that are unfair...

Therefore, it is possible for these two to analyze the level of emotional intelligence, which can also be a specific test of rational capacity, of judgment, in which to judge the character (personality, history, intentionality...) of Trump, a typically greedy businessman, seems easier than doing so with Kamala. But being able to see beyond appearances is a more robust test of intelligence, not just emotional intelligence, and on this test, anyone who judges Kamala as much better than Trump, or even as a conclusively good-natured person, is demonstrating a high level of naivety, which may indicate a more generalized personal scenario in which appearances tend to be more often deceiving. It's the difference between simply noting what you see, and the need to be more careful and see not what you see at first glance ("I'm in favor of solidarity with immigrants and refugees"), but what is not revealed at first glance (she built her political career based on the electoral identity victimhood of "vote for me because I'm a woman of color" and the policies she defends, even if primarily well-intentioned, are radical, extremist or reckless, such as mass immigration; they deny historical and current evidence of how problematic multiculturalism can be; they are based on moral fallacies and/or emotional blackmail, and therefore cause problems or disruptions, especially for the less well-off classes. So, it's easy to be in favor of them when you live far from imported problems, when you live in privilege, as Kamala, let's say, has always lived). In conclusion, if you can only detect bad character when it is explicit, it is likely that you have emotional intelligence at the level of a child, underdeveloped or precarious, specific to the abilities to detect deception or lies and to judge intention or nature...

Because it is from this test that we also realize how intertwined both emotional intelligence and rationality tend to be.

Exemplos reais (na política) da lei de ouro da estupidez, de Carlo Cipolla/Real examples (in politics) of Carlo Cipolla's golden law of stupidity

 "Uma pessoa estúpida é aquela que causa dano a outra pessoa ou grupo sem, ao mesmo tempo, obter um benefício para si mesma ou mesmo causar prejuízo."

Carlos Cipolla (1922-2000), professor de história econômica e que escreveu livros especialmente sobre os riscos da explosão demográfica, chamou isso de lei de ouro da estupidez humana. 

1. Políticas de abrandamento e do abolicionismo penal 

Baseadas em pseudociências "do bem", "de esquerda", cada vez mais influentes na política e que, comprovadamente, não diminuem a criminalidade, pelo contrário, a incentivam; baseadas em crenças equivocadas sobre o comportamento humano, sendo que uma delas é a crença na tábula rasa, de que o meio tem o impacto mais forte e decisivo no mesmo e não características intrínsecas, como a personalidade ou caráter. Essa política é um exemplo perfeito de política "puramente estúpida" que preenche todos os critérios para ser classificada como um exemplo real da lei de ouro da estupidez humana. 

2. Políticas de imigração em massa ou multiculturalismo

Baseadas em uma constelação de crenças pseudocientíficas e pseudofilosóficas "tipicamente progressistas", tal como o negacionismo das diferenças intrínsecas de comportamento e inteligência entre indivíduos e grupos humanos, que têm como método principal a insensatez de afrouxar as fronteiras de um determinado país, almejando uma recepção generosa de imigrantes estrangeiros, supostamente para combater o racismo (argumento moral) e o envelhecimento demográfico (argumento econômico), desprezando completamente o histórico negativo de experiências multiculturais; a inutilidade prática de atrair imigrantes de países pobres, se isso não irá desenvolvê-los e sanar um pouco os "crimes cometidos no passado'; o próprio conteúdo falacioso da maioria dos argumentos morais usados, tal como o negacionismo da existência de raças humanas e suas diferenças; e a decisão mais adequada, que seria de priorizar o problema da baixa natalidade dos nativos ao invés de apelar para a imigração em massa.

3. Políticas "progressistas" na educação

Geralmente baseadas na ideia simplória da promoção de vultosos investimentos na área, mas em completo desprezo à realidade das diferenças humanas de natureza intrínseca, em outras palavras, literalmente "torrando" o dinheiro público em medidas que não geram qualquer resultado consistentemente positivo, no sentido de melhorarem o desempenho acadêmico da maioria dos estudantes ou o respeito e a harmonia em ambiente escolar. Geralmente, focam no objetivo de igualar os desempenhos dos estudantes, dando atenção especial aos menos capazes, como se suas capacidades menos desenvolvidas fossem reflexos apenas de uma falta de empenho nos estudos e/ou associada a um contexto socioeconômico desfavorável, e negligenciando aqueles com maior potencial de contribuição social quando se tornarem adultos. 

3. Destruição do meio ambiente por lucros

Uma política econômica, insensata e imoral, que prega pela exploração predatória do meio ambiente visando lucros e que, apesar de favorecer certos grupos a curto ou médio prazo, pode ter efeitos muito negativos mesmo àqueles que são primariamente beneficiados. Por exemplo, a exploração sem limites de um determinado ambiente natural pode acabar com os seus "recursos", forçando a comunidade que depende deles a buscar por outros locais ainda não-explorados. Portanto, se trata de uma política que não preenche todos os requisitos para entrar nessa categoria de políticas puramente estúpidas, porém, a longo prazo e a nível coletivo, pode ser considerada como próxima ou semelhante. 

Apesar de toda política pública depender da perspectiva daquele que a defende para poder ser categorizada de acordo com os tipos pensados por Cipolla, além do estúpido clássico, o "inteligente" (em que seu comportamento tende a beneficiar a si mesmo e aos outros), o "bandido" (beneficia apenas a si mesmo em detrimento do bem estar alheio) e o "ingênuo" (beneficia apenas os outros em detrimento do próprio bem estar), as políticas exemplificadas costumam ser prejudiciais a todos os que são submetidos a elas, se a curto ou longo prazo, direta ou indiretamente... Por exemplo, defender pelo abrandamento penal, apesar de impactar diretamente as classes trabalhadoras, aumentando a circulação de criminosos em seus ambientes sociais, também pode ou costuma prejudicar as outras classes sociais, pelo aumento da insegurança pública que acarreta e, consequentemente, limitando a liberdade de trânsito da maioria da população. Então, a adoção pessoal de uma ou mais dessas políticas, mesmo que não aconteça de maneira mais literal ou menos discursiva, é suficiente para um indivíduo expressar o que Carlo Cipolla chamou de regra de ouro da estupidez. 

(Mas, essa política em particular, também pode ser interpretada como típica de um indivíduo incorrigivelmente ingênuo, portanto, podendo ser colocada em outra categoria que o Cipolla propôs, comentada rapidamente nesse texto).

* Baseado nesse texto: "Analisando criticamente as 5 leis da estupidez humana"

"A stupid person is one who causes harm to another person or group without, at the same time, obtaining a benefit for himself or even causing harm."

Carlos Cipolla (1922-2000), professor of economic history and who wrote books especially about the risks of the demographic explosion, called this the golden law of human stupidity.

1. Policies of criminal punishment relaxation and penal abolitionism

Based on "good", "left-wing" pseudosciences, increasingly influential in politics and which, demonstrably, do not reduce crime, on the contrary, they encourage it; based on mistaken beliefs about human behavior, one of which is the belief in the blank slate, that the environment has the strongest and most decisive impact on it and not intrinsic characteristics, such as personality or character. This policy is a perfect example of a "purely stupid" policy that meets all the criteria to be classified as a real example of the golden law of human stupidity.

2. Mass immigration policies or multiculturalism

Based on a constellation of "typically progressive" pseudoscientific and pseudophilosophical beliefs, such as the denial of intrinsic differences in behavior and intelligence between individuals and human groups, which have as their main method the folly of loosening the borders of a given country, aiming for a welcome generosity of foreign immigrants, supposedly to combat racism (moral argument) and demographic aging (economic argument), completely disregarding the negative history of multicultural experiences; the practical uselessness of attracting immigrants from poor countries, if this will not develop them and somewhat heal the "crimes committed in the past"; the fallacious content of most of the moral arguments used, such as the denial of the existence of human races and their differences; and the most appropriate decision, which would be to prioritize the problem of the low birth rate of natives instead of appealing to mass immigration.

3. "Progressive" policies in education

Generally based on the simplistic idea of ​​promoting huge investments in the area, but in complete disregard for the reality of human differences of an intrinsic nature, in other words, literally "wasting" public money in measures that do not generate any consistently positive result, in the sense of improve the academic performance of most students or respect and harmony in the school environment. Generally, they focus on the objective of equalizing student performance, giving special attention to those less capable, as if their less developed abilities were merely reflections of a lack of commitment to studies and/or associated with an unfavorable socioeconomic context, and neglecting those with greater potential for social contribution when they become adults.

3. Destruction of the environment for profits

An economic policy, senseless and immoral, which advocates the predatory exploitation of the environment for profit and which, despite favoring certain groups in the short or medium term, can have very negative effects even on those who are primarily benefited. For example, the unlimited exploration of a certain natural environment can end its "resources", forcing the community that depends on them to look for other places that have not yet been explored. Therefore, it is a policy that does not meet all the requirements to enter this category of purely stupid policies, however, in the long term and at a collective level, it can be considered as close or similar.

Although all public policy depends on the perspective of those who defend it in order to be categorized according to the types thought by Cipolla, in addition to the classic stupid, the "intelligent" (in which his behavior tends to benefit himself and others), the "criminal" (only benefits himself to the detriment of the well-being of others) and the "naive" (only benefits others to the detriment of his own well-being), the exemplified policies are usually harmful to all who are subjected to them, whether in the short or long term, directly or indirectly... For example, advocating for criminal punishment relaxation despite having a direct impact on the working classes, increasing the circulation of criminals in their social environments, can also or usually harm other social classes, by the increase in public insecurity it causes and, consequently, limiting the freedom of movement of the majority of the population. So, the personal adoption of one or more of these policies, even if it does not happen in a more literal or less discursive way, is enough for an individual to express what Carlo Cipolla called the golden rule of stupidity.

(But this particular policy can also be interpreted as typical of an incorrigibly naive individual, therefore, and can be placed in another category that Cipolla proposed, briefly commented on in this text).

* Based on this

text: "Critically analyzing the 5 laws of human stupidity"

Sobre o conceito mais universal de inteligência.../About the most universal concept of intelligence...

 ... compartilhado por todas as formas de vida*

Capacidade de adaptação e que, em termos mais objetivos, significa capacidade de sobrevivência, em especial pela busca por fontes de energia/alimento e pela detecção de riscos e perigos, sendo que, a segunda capacidade seria ainda mais universal, por se manifestar de maneira mais conceitualmente homogênea (meios e objetivo) entre as espécies, porque a primeira capacidade, ainda que igualmente fundamental, pode se manifestar de maneira diversa, inclusive com o mínimo de esforço cognitivo ou perceptivo, tal como no caso das espécies autotróficas, que não encontram sua fonte de energia pela predação (estratégica) de outras formas de vida.

* E que eu já comentei nesse outro texto: "Evolução, inteligência e justiça social"

Então, e sobre QI??

São as pessoas que pontuam mais alto nos testes cognitivos, em média, mais inteligentes para encontrar fontes de energia/alimento e na detecção de riscos, perigos...?? 

Em relação à primeira capacidade, sim, por haver uma correlação positiva entre alto QI e maior renda, mas, com um grande porém, se as sociedades modernas têm sido, em partes, desenhadas para acomodar essa parcela da população, facilitando sua adaptação, aliás, uma invenção justamente dos mais inteligentes... Já em relação à segunda capacidade, de detecção de riscos, essa relação se torna mais complexa e até surpreendentemente destoante da dedução mais lógica, pois se usarmos pontuações em testes cognitivos como parâmetro comparativo e as confrontarmos com comportamentos e crenças de pessoas de diferentes faixas de inteligência, ainda mais nessa primeira metade da terceira década de século XXI, chegaremos ao resultado de que, pontuar alto se correlaciona positivamente com ideias e pensamentos que refletem mais sobre ingenuidade e fidelidade ideológica do que sobre uma real compreensão específica aos tópicos relacionados, que pode contribuir para uma tomada de julgamento mais adequado, no sentido de mais racional ou alinhado aos fatos. Por exemplo, se pegarmos discussões sobre políticas de imigração e multiculturalismo, particularmente indivíduos de raça branca e ideologia à esquerda, abundantes entre aqueles que pontuam alto em testes de QI, estarão mais propensos a ter opiniões excessivamente positivas sobre os mesmos, de que, portanto, os países onde vivem, mas também outros países, especialmente se forem similares, devem ser mais receptivos a imigrantes e refugiados do que cautelosos ou céticos, enquanto que, é justamente uma opinião contrária a essa maior receptividade (discursiva) que é a mais ponderada, se se baseia nos prós e contra que têm acumulado sobre tais políticas e desequilibrando para os contra, como o aumento da criminalidade e de conflitos culturais, além do predomínio de argumentos fracos usados para apoiá-las, tal como de que os imigrantes são importantes para combater o envelhecimento demográfico e seus efeitos na economia ou que países com histórico de colonialismo devem ser generosos na recepção de imigrantes como maneira de compensar suas atitudes do passado, como se fossem medidas plenamente sensatas e certas que resolverão seus respectivos problemas, se quanto à primeira, o mais adequado seria de, primeiro, incentivar a natalidade da população nativa, com políticas social e economicamente pró-natalistas (mas também preferencialmente pró- ambientalistas, que busquem por um equilíbrio e não uma nova explosão demográfica) e, quanto à segunda, a melhor maneira de compensar seria ajudando os países outrora colônias a se desenvolverem, se não adianta receber os seus efetivos em grande número, já que isso não irá acabar com as mazelas dos seus países, além do potencial (que tem sido comprovado) de causar mais problemas nos países que os recebem. Um outro exemplo em que o básico bom senso traduzido a um contexto de segurança pública e pessoal e que uma parte nada modesta da população de maior QI, guiada por doutrinação e conformidade ideológica, tem se posicionado contrariamente é sobre a lógica da aplicação de políticas mais severas no combate à criminalidade, preferindo por políticas mais brandas que são comprovadamente menos efetivas, até por contribuírem para aumentar a insegurança e o crime ao invés de combatê-los. Pois pode até ser o caso de que muitas dessas pessoas, por não conviverem diariamente com o grosso da "bandidagem", confortáveis em seus bairros de classe média e alta, tenham opiniões, diga-se, ignorantes sobre isso, porém adaptativo aos seus ciclos sociais, tal como nos da educação superior, saturados de conformismo ao politicamente correto vigente, dito "de esquerda"; o que não as redime totalmente, se continua a se tratar de uma grande falha na detecção de perigos, riscos, problemas, de curto, médio a longo prazo... mesmo se não as atingem diretamente, ainda que praticamente todo aquele que vive em uma cidade de porte médio ou grande em boa parte do mundo ocidental, pelo menos, se sente inseguro em alguns ou muitos contextos em seu cotidiano, demonstrando que, mesmo vivendo em bairros distantes dos periféricos ou mais pobres não os torna completamente imunes à insegurança pública.

Seria esse o maior teste dos testes de QI??

..shared by all life forms*

Capacity to adapt and which, in more objective terms, means survival capacity, especially through the search for energy/food sources and the detection of risks and dangers, and the second capacity would be even more universal, as it manifests itself in a more conceptually homogeneous (means and objective) between species, because the first capacity, although equally fundamental, can manifest itself in different ways, even with minimal cognitive or perceptual effort, such as in the case of autotrophic species, which do not find its source of energy through (strategic) predation of other life forms.

* And which I have already commented on in this other text: "Evolution, intelligence and social justice"

So, what about IQ??

Are people who score higher on cognitive tests, on average, more intelligent in finding energy/food sources and in detecting risks, dangers...??

In relation to the first capacity, yes, because there is a positive correlation between high IQ and higher income, but, with a big caveat, if modern societies have been, in part, designed to accommodate this portion of the population, facilitating their adaptation, in fact , an invention of precisely the most intelligent... In relation to the second capacity, risk detection, this relation becomes more complex and even surprisingly different from the more logical deduction, because if we use scores in cognitive tests as a comparative parameter and confront them with behaviors and beliefs of people of different intelligence ranges, even more so in this first half of the third decade of the 21st century, we will arrive at the result that scoring high correlates positively with ideas and thoughts that reflect more on naivety and ideological loyalty than on a real specific understanding of related topics, which can contribute to making a more appropriate judgment, in the sense of being more rational or aligned with the facts. For example, if we take discussions about immigration policies and multiculturalism, particularly individuals of white race and leftist ideology, abundant among those who score high on IQ tests, will be more likely to have overly positive opinions about them, which therefore , the countries where they live, but also other countries, especially if they are similar, should be more receptive to immigrants and refugees than cautious or skeptical, while it is precisely an opinion contrary to this greater (discursive) receptivity that is the most considered , if it is based on the pros and cons that have accumulated about such policies and imbalanced towards the cons, such as the increase in crime and cultural conflicts, in addition to the predominance of weak arguments used to support them, such as that immigrants are important to combat demographic aging and its effects on the economy or that countries with a history of colonialism should be generous in welcoming immigrants as a way of compensating for their past attitudes, as if they were completely sensible and certain measures that will solve their respective problems, if in terms of first, the most appropriate would be to, first, encourage the birth rate of the native population, with socially and economically pro-natalist policies (but also preferably pro-environmentalist, which seek a balance and not a new demographic explosion) and, as for the second , the best way to compensate would be to help the countries that were formerly colonies to develop, otherwise there is no point in receiving their troops in large numbers, as this will not end the problems of their countries, in addition to the potential (which has been proven) to cause more problems in the countries that receive them. Another example in which basic common sense translated into a context of public and personal security and in which a far from modest part of the population with higher IQ, guided by indoctrination and ideological conformity, has taken a contrary position is regarding the logic of applying more stringent policies. severe measures to combat crime, preferring softer policies that are proven to be less effective, even as they contribute to increasing insecurity and crime instead of combating them. Because it may even be the case that many of these people, because they do not live daily with the bulk of the "banditry", comfortable in their middle and upper class neighborhoods, have opinions that are, let's say, ignorant about this, but adaptable to their social cycles, such as higher education, saturated with conformity to the current political correctness, so-called "left-wing"; which does not completely redeem them, if it continues to be a major failure in detecting dangers, risks, problems, in the short, medium to long term... even if they do not affect them directly, even though practically everyone who lives in a medium or large city in much of the Western world,at least, feel insecure in some or many contexts in their daily lives, demonstrating that even living in neighborhoods far from peripheral or poorer neighborhoods does not make them completely immune to public insecurity.

Could this be the biggest test of IQ tests?