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

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

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

* Which is also a structural aspect of irrationality.

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

On the flat-earthism of behavior

 Flat-Earthism has become an informal synonym for pseudoscience on social media in recent years. It's no wonder, because it's one of the most obvious pseudosciences, an absurd falsification of currently very basic scientific facts, such as the shape of the planet Earth, has become an easy target for mockery, especially among those who consider themselves to be more knowledgeable about science. That's why I also decided to adopt it to refer to a series of pseudo-knowledge, but about human behavior, that have become hegemonic in the government, the media and academia, and that, ironically, tend to be wrongly ratified as legitimate knowledge by many of those who love to mock the original flat-earthers... I've also gotten used to calling these flat-earthers "good pseudosciences" (ideologically biased to the "left" on the political-ideological spectrum). So, without further ado, let's get to them:

1. That human behavior is the product only of environmental circumstances or that we are mere reagents, with little will of our own

A kind of denialistic "circumstantialism" because it disregards the importance of the biology or nature of the human individual in relation to his or her own behavior, which is probably inspired by the belief in the blank slate, that we are born as blank sheets of paper and that our mental characteristics are shaped only by life experiences. As if our mental traits were not also, on average, inherited from our parents, just as happens with "physical" traits. In fact, our psychological and cognitive behaviors are predominantly stable expressions of the morphology and constitution of our brains, as well as of other more closely related organic aspects, such as hormones, in interaction with the environment. They are also "physical". And this brings us to the second flat-eartherism of behavior...

2. That human behavior is exclusively mental, in the supposed sense of being metaphysical or unrelated to "physical patterns"

As if the mind, and only or especially the human mind, presented a radically different nature from the rest of the body, as if it were not physical and chemical either, but a kind of abstraction that transcends such "limitations"... I have already called this type of thinking, which can be considered fallacious, semanticalism, in which an exaggerated significance is attributed to the word in relation to the element or phenomenon it symbolizes, even more so when it is a term that is more imaginary than real or that does not present confirmed evidence. As for this type of flat-earthism that denies the physical-chemical nature of the mind, I could call it "mentalism", an absolutely excessive emphasis on the "mind" to the point of treating it as a reality in itself and not as what is most likely to be: a derived expression.

Yes, yes, "physicalism" is by far the most sensible hypothesis about what the human mind would be, basically what has been said at this point, and which is the most accepted by science. Yet another useless discussion raised and sustained by philosophy, or by this "philosophy" without a quality filter, in which ideas divorced from a minimum and necessary collaboration with scientific thought continue to be considered in the field of intellectually pertinent discussions, even if they do not present any evidence (or indirect clue) that they are feasible.

3. That human behavior is invariably logical

A kind of excessive emphasis on the logical character of human behavior, more in the sense of reciprocal action and reaction, such as the example that, if an individual has an upbringing devoid of affection and understanding during his formative years, he will inevitably become an adult of dubious character. However, personality is a very relevant factor in this dynamic, which makes this idea of ​​directly reciprocal or "logical" reaction less evident. And since personality traits, in addition to being reactive patterns, also tend to be more stable or variably independent of what happens around the human individual... Another example is the idea that environmental conditions unilaterally favor certain behaviors, such as in the case of being in a situation of poverty and committing crimes, even as a justification for committing such actions, and which still usually comes with the generic solution of combating social inequalities, as if only the environment were causal in relation to this or that behavior and as if all human action were reciprocally logical, here, in which poverty or social neglect would justify the practice of crimes. And even though there is always an obvious and constant interaction between the environment and the human being, what determines our behaviors, in the sense of "giving the final answer", is "ourselves" or what we present in terms of personality, intelligence... of how we have reacted, interpreted and concluded from our experiences. Once again, an appeal to my defense "heterodox" approach to validating biological determinism as an absolute truth, quite different from what, especially, the so-called flat-earthers of behavior, tend to position themselves on...

Because one of the most basic technical mistakes that has been made to exhaustion in the area of ​​psychology, and that contributes to the emergence of these flat-earthers, is the confusion between correlation and causality, for example, the positive correlation between the type of upbringing received and the capacity for moral discernment, in which many academic researchers have come to the conclusion that the type of upbringing is a causal factor in the development of the character of a human individual, instead of thinking about the less generalist and, therefore, less extraordinary possibility, that parents tend to produce children who inherit similar personality traits from them, with this more robust statistical agreement occurring, primarily based on one of the most basic facts of biology, not just human biology, heredity, and not just "physical traits", since the type of upbringing also reflects the personality traits of an individual, in this case, the parents, in interaction with their family environment. So, in simpler words easy, we have: more intrinsically loving parents are more likely to have more loving or empathetic children (although this rule does not seem to be significant, even due to the relatively random nature of the inheritance patterns of traits among human beings. In any case, this tendency for concordance of personality traits and intelligence between parents and their biological children is greater than the tendency for discordance, hence the more positive than negative correlation).

4. That human behavior is the exclusive product of upbringing or education

A type of "behavioral creationism" in which everything about human behavior is credited to the upbringing received during the formative years, again, denying the fact that we are practically born with psychological and cognitive predispositions (which can also be called patterns) that we inherit from our parents (more in a combinatorial sense than directly transmitted) and that we even begin to express them from the first years of life. An example of a hypothesis that has been raised based on this pseudoscience is that of the "cooler mother", to explain autism.

4.1 That human behavior is the exclusive product of culture

A denialist variation of the influence of biology on human behavior of what has already been shown above, but focusing on the belief that culture is the most important factor of influence. But culture, on average, reflects psychological and cognitive characteristics of the population that expresses it, including the common tendency for social conformity, in the case of a highly social species, such as ours. Culture did not come first or out of nowhere. And even in the case of absolute dictatorships, such as that of North Korea, where a more direct imposition of a culture on a population is perceived, the latter always ends up adapting, also out of conformity, although, in this example, it is a more traditional culture that has changed little since before the socialist revolution, whose most notable changes were the introduction of a personality cult of leaders and the significant increase in the restriction of individual and/or democratic freedoms. But even in the case of more significant cultural (behavior or customs) or intergenerational changes, such as those that have occurred in the Western world, first of all, they could not be happen without there being a biological possibility for this, based on that very basic logic that it is not possible for an individual to become something that is not available as a possibility in his/her list of behavioral plasticity, such as in the example of an individual with modest cognitive abilities who, in a normal life trajectory scenario, cannot become gifted (in a more academically traditional sense) just by effort or dedication to this goal. Therefore, these changes cannot be or are not totally divorced from biology. Secondly, not everyone in a generation reacts in the same way to their cultural environment, as seen in the existence of individuals explicitly opposed to the behavioral tendencies of their generation. Thirdly, it is also important to note the existence of a porcentage of the population that adheres only superficially to the prevailing culture, by conformity, but more in the sense of social pressure to, at least, not position themselves contrary to the postulates determined as the order of the day, to conform through silence. In short, different human beings tend to react in different ways to the same pressures from the cultural environment. Yes, especially compared to other species, we are very generalists. But this does not mean that our behavioral plasticity is indefinite or infinite...

So this belief that we are more generalists than/what we really are leads us to the fifth flat-earthism...

5. That human behavior is very plastic or adaptive, also in the sense of being undefined/without absolute limitations

As if our emotional and cognitive limits were always and only a matter of mental block and that, with an appropriate intervention, it were possible to overcome them. For example, the hypothesis that it would be a specific anxiety that explains difficulties in learning mathematics and not that they could be reflections of characteristics of the individual's own cognitive profile, something more intrinsic, and that, therefore, cannot be absolutely changed.

This leads us to examples of flat-earthism in the behavior of some specific disciplines:

Education

It is based on the belief that every student who does not present evident intellectual disabilities has a similar or identical potential for developing their cognitive abilities and that, what most differentiates them in terms of academic performance, is the effort put into studying plus the environmental conditions (how favorable or unfavorable they are). It is also applied to behavior or personality differences, in which they are attributed to the same factors: cultural, upbringing, or environmental, and never to the student's own nature (biology or "genetics").

There are other expressions of flat-earthism in behavior in the area of ​​education, more specifically in subjects such as history and geography, in which there is a dominance of narratives of the same type, but applied in social and historical contexts, such as that the main or only reasons for the differences in social and economic development between nations are their historical and cultural trajectories, completely disregarding biological factors, such as the average intelligence and temperament of their populations.

From psychology

It can be considered as the original flat-earthism of behavior, as it relates to knowledge that deals directly with human behavior. And as has already been mentioned, it is based on a kind of scientific illiteracy disguised as human sciences, for example, by always proposing hypotheses that confuse correlation with causality in relation to the factors that influence our behaviors, always pointing to environmental factors as the most influential, delegating an irrelevant role to biology.

Biology

In this discipline, the denial of the predominant influence of biology  on human behavior is more sophisticated, precisely because it is biology itself, especially with the rise of epigenetics, a branch derived from genetics that is probably valid in scientific terms, but which has been used to confront and invalidate the importance of genetics in human behavior and development and not to add knowledge. Hence, as is the norm of a typical pseudoscience, lacking in multidisciplinarity, everything about a phenomenon or situation, in this case, behavior, is attributed to the same cause, "epigenetics" or "supposedly independent, parallel and/or external influences on genetic variation and determination", whereas a more scientifically adequate analysis considers all the factors involved and seeks to construct a hierarchy from the most influential to the least influential factors (which, in this case, would be biology as more influential than the environment in determining human behavior, a fact ratified by the perception of patterns that positively corroborate this conclusion, such as by the predominant failure of pedagogical interventions in promoting a substantial improvement in students' academic performance). 

From criminology

The same inversion of the relationship between cause and effect, but within a judicial context, in which the human subject is placed in a more secondary position of importance in relation to his own behavior and in a situation where crimes are committed, the beliefs that environmental factors, and not character, is predominate (the first flat-earther theory), and also in the complete moral regeneration of anyone who commits crimes (the third, fourth and fifth)...

There are also some ideologically related and radical ideologies, such as penal abolitionism, which advocate the end of penitentiaries, that is, based on these flat-earther theories, in addition to other philosophically and scientifically dubious sources...

Replication of a pseudoscientific finding

 The supposed (almost causal) correlation between IQ and rationality, in this new study below:

https://www.psypost.org/twin-study-suggests-rationality-and-intelligence-share-the-same-genetic-roots/

But why is it a pseudoscientific finding??

Because rational capacity is not well assessed by questions about hypothetical and specific situations, but by the factual quality of an individual's belief system, a much more objective way of accessing it. In other words, more is known about a person's level of common sense by their beliefs than by their answers on a test. Also because, generally, there is not just one "right" or "most rational" answer to specific everyday situations that require decision or judgment, if personal contexts can/usually vary, as well as the way we deal with them (influenced especially by our most intrinsic characteristics: personality, cognitive style...). And last but not least, because this is yet another correlation, even in the case of the "most rational" in "rationality tests", it seems that the number of people with high average IQs, especially verbal IQs, who have a high level of ideological fanaticism for certain irrational beliefs, such as the belief in egalitarianism, one of the most common in this population, seems to be disproportionate, demonstrating that a high cognitive capacity alone is not enough to function as a protective factor against chronic irrationality, nor that rationality is basically a discrete facet of cognitive capacities, as this study is claiming, even though it is believed to be a combination or recruitment of certain capacities, both cognitive and non-cognitive, that contribute to its expression and development, precisely a type of modulation (and that irrationality would logically be an opposite modulation).

This type of study is based on certain postulates that do not seem to match the observed and practical reality of human intelligence. The most relevant point here is that there is a g factor of cognitive abilities that results in a non-modular expression of intelligence, the opposite of what is perceived in reality. For if it is true that human intelligence is more generalist than that of other species, perhaps the most generalist of all, this is true in a comparative sense, because we continue to be more inclined towards cognitive specialization, even if less strict. For there is abundant evidence that corroborates this thesis, that human intelligence has a more modular nature, and that this diversity of specializations, consequently, tends to manifest itself in a more irregular manner among human groups. For example, the cognitive differences in visual-spatial and emotional abilities between men and women.

For even if it is possible to confirm the predominant occurrence of a regularity of individual performance in cognitive tests, it must be reiterated that this phenomenon is limited to psychometrics. This would explain, for example, an individual with high verbal-linguistic ability also presenting excellent mathematical performance in more general or superficial cognitive assessments, but, in practice, ending up developing more of his most prominent cognitive facet and still presenting a very average performance in non-verbal skills. However, this does not mean that intelligence differs individually only through channeling in certain capacities and that it ends up affecting other capacities, as if everyone presented the same initial potential and were to differ based on the process of choosing domains, but rather that these channeling or specialization tendencies are much deeper, structurally predetermined, according to the morphological/cerebral characteristics, in short, the physical-chemical characteristics of the individual, that is, cognitively reflective of these characteristics. It also means that there is a varied, but always limited, level of modulation of capacities and that, while this flexibility does not have an infinite or indefinable potential, there is a tendency in which the expressive emergence of certain cognitive (and psychological) capacities or characteristics tends to be related to a variably reduced expression of other characteristics or capacities, which seem to present a more antagonistic relationship. For example, visual-spatial capacities, much more developed in men, and socio-emotional capacities, much more developed in women; the difference between having a brain that pays more attention to inanimate elements and one that pays more attention to people and other living beings.

A translated excerpt from the text in the link shows the type of test that was applied to supposedly assess rational capacity, and that, in fact, it is a test of logical thinking, which is not exactly the same as rational thinking* and

which, in my opinion, can only be best assessed in real-world situations.

* Rational thinking is about the perception of facts, evidence or even a more impartial and objective analysis always aiming for greater understanding. Logical thinking, a priori, is about finding the underlying logic in a given context or situation, that which makes specific sense, although also related to the perception of an objective truth, not necessarily the same as rational thinking. This is the difference between finding the most correct answer to a problem and knowing that Cuba is not a democracy from any possible conceptual angle.

"Cognitive rationality was assessed using a specific test known as the Cognitive Reflection Test. This test presents individuals with problems designed to trigger an intuitive but incorrect response. For example, a question asks: "A bat and a ball together cost $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" The quick, intuitive answer is 10 cents, but the correct answer, which requires a little more thought, is actually 5 cents. The Cognitive Reflection Test uses several of these questions to see how well people can resist misleading intuitions and arrive at the logically correct answer."

As I have already mentioned and will say again in this text, a true test of rational capacity would precisely assess the level of rationality, which is very redundant, and, for this, nothing is more intuitive than doing so by assessing how centered on facts, evidence and consideration an individual's (personal) beliefs are, since they are much more important and influential, including in terms of intellectual discernment, of perceiving what is true and what is not, than getting correct answers on a test about hypothetical and very specific situations.

Sobre diferenças e semelhanças entre pseudociência e pseudofilosofia/About differences and similarities between pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy

 Uma diferença 

Diga-se, uma diferença elementar...

Só existe uma pseudofilosofia, que é qualquer ideologia que se passa como filosofia. Infelizmente, um hábito há muito enraizado, de considerar ideologia e filosofia como sinônimos intercambiáveis, enquanto a filosofia é uma ideologia por si mesma, de amor pela sabedoria, qualquer linha estruturada de pensamentos pode ser considerada uma ideologia, primariamente se distinguindo quanto ao seu conteúdo e segundo por sua qualidade factual e moral. Mas, então, se apenas uma ideologia que pode ser considerada uma filosofia (quando há uma sistematização do pensamento lógico-racional), qualquer outra ideologia que é considerada uma filosofia pode ser considerada uma pseudofilosofia. 

Já no caso da ciência, é o oposto, se existe uma pluralidade de áreas ou campos científicos, também acontece o mesmo com as pseudociências. 

Essa diferença comunga com as minhas observações sobre as suas respectivas naturezas: a filosofia como uma especialização na generalização (especialização no pensamento e no julgamento) e a ciência como uma generalização da especialização. 

Algumas pseudociências se assemelham mais a uma pseudofilosofia 

Como no caso das pseudociências "do bem", que tendem a ser política e ideologicamente enviesadas à esquerda, porque também se consistem em processos de moralização, de determinação de um certo e um errado, tal como, idealmente, também se consiste a prática filosófica. Porém, invertendo a ordem mais adequada desse processo, oposto ao da sabedoria e, portanto, da justiça, de determinar a moralidade, de certo e errado, sem fazê-lo a partir de uma análise ponderada e crítica, isto é, por uma busca objetiva e imparcial por fatos.

Uma semelhança 

Diga-se, uma semelhança elementar...

Ambas se assemelham bastante em um traço que lhes é muito básico e característico, a negação de uma busca sistemática pela verdade objetiva e imparcial. A maior diferença é que enquanto uma determina o que é a verdade, em um sentido mais geral, mas com base em critérios vagos e equivocados, como uma falsa sabedoria, a outra se passa como ciência falsificando seus aspectos teóricos e práticos ao estabelecer-se como uma verdade específica, se de causa e efeito (homeopatia cura doenças) ou como uma afirmação de verdade (o planeta Terra tem um formato plano).

 A difference

In other words, an elementary difference...

There is only one pseudo-philosophy, which is any ideology that passes as philosophy. Unfortunately, a long-rooted habit of considering ideology and philosophy as interchangeable synonyms, while philosophy is an ideology in itself, of love for wisdom, any structured line of thoughts can be considered an ideology, primarily distinguishing itself in terms of its content. and second by its factual and moral quality. But then, if only an ideology can be considered a philosophy (when there is a systematization of logical-rational thought), any other ideology that is considered a philosophy can be considered a pseudophilosophy.

In the case of science, it is the opposite, if there is a plurality of scientific areas or fields, the same also happens with pseudosciences.

This difference is in line with my observations about their respective natures: philosophy as a specialization in generalization (specialization in thought and judgment) and science as a generalization of specialization.

Some pseudosciences are more similar to pseudophilosophy

As in the case of "good" pseudosciences, which tend to be politically and ideologically biased to the left, because they also consist of processes of moralization, of determining right and wrong, just as, ideally, philosophical practice also consists of . However, reversing the most appropriate order of this process, opposite to that of wisdom and, therefore, justice, of determining morality, right and wrong, without doing so from a considered and critical analysis, that is, through a search objective and impartial by facts.

A similarity

In other words, an elementary similarity...

Both are very similar in a trait that is very basic and characteristic of them, the denial of a systematic search for objective and impartial truth. The biggest difference is that while one determines what the truth is, in a more general sense, but based on vague and mistaken criteria, such as false wisdom, the other passes as science, falsifying its theoretical and practical aspects when establishing itself. as a specific truth, whether of cause and effect (homeopathy cures diseases) or as a statement of truth (planet Earth has a flat shape).

A diferença entre pseudociências "do bem" e a filosofia/The difference between pseudosciences of good and philosophy

 Uma pseudociência "do bem" ou "de esquerda" é uma categoria de pseudociência que eu identifiquei e determinei, de falsificação específica da prática científica em que ocorre o estabelecimento de um código moral, do que se considera certo ou errado, ao invés de, antes, priorizar a busca pelo conhecimento, do que é verdadeiro ou falso. E por isso também pode ser considerada uma pseudofilosofia, por estabelecer uma moralização, como também faz a filosofia, mas invertendo a ordem mais ideal da sabedoria e, portanto, da justiça, ao impor uma moralidade antes de buscar por uma análise imparcial e objetiva ou racional dos fatos, de ponderação no pensamento e no julgamento. Em outras palavras, impõe-se o certo e o errado sem ser estritamente com base no que é verdadeiro ou falso. Tal como, por exemplo, de se fazer uma afirmação sem evidência tratando-a como uma verdade absoluta ou desprezando a necessidade de confirmá-la se por meios empíricos ou por verificação comparativa entre o que se afirma e sobre o que se afirma. O certo e o errado impostos, sem evidência ou análise racional, como verdadeiro e falso. Então, a filosofia também visa estabelecer uma moralidade ou construir uma consciência crítica sobre o que se pensa e o que se faz. A diferença em relação à pseudociência do bem é que essa moralização só acontece a partir de uma análise racional.

Nesse sentido, as pseudociências do bem pouco se diferem das religiões tradicionais, por ambas se basearem nessa inversão da prática mais ideal da filosofia. Uma das únicas grandes diferenças entre elas, como já postulei em outros textos, é que as religiões tradicionais expressam um anti intelectualismo, uma crença a partir da fé ou suspensão do pensamento lógico-racional, enquanto que as ideologias políticas, especialmente as de esquerda, e que também podem ser categorizadas como pseudociências (que eu ainda acrescentei o complemento sarcástico "do bem"), expressam um pseudo intelectualismo, basicamente o mesmo que o anti intelectualismo, só que visando se passar como ciência ou filosofia, como uma espécie de falsificação da razão, não necessariamente como uma negação explícita da mesma. 

A pseudoscience of "good" or of the left is a category of pseudoscience that I have identified and determined, of specific falsification of scientific practice in which the establishment of a moral code occurs, of what is considered right or wrong, instead of, rather, prioritize the search for knowledge, of what is true or false. And for this reason it can also be considered a pseudophilosophy, as it establishes a moralization, as philosophy also does, but inverting the most ideal order of wisdom and, therefore, justice, by imposing a morality before seeking an impartial and objective analysis or rationality of facts, of weighting in thought and judgment. In other words, right and wrong are imposed without being strictly based on what is true or false. Such as, for example, making a statement without evidence, treating it as an absolute truth or disregarding the need to confirm it whether by empirical means or by comparative verification between what is stated and what is stated about. Right and wrong imposed, without evidence or rational analysis, as true and false. So, philosophy also aims to establish morality or build a critical consciousness about what one thinks and what one does. The difference in relation to the pseudoscience of good is that this moralization only occurs based on a rational analysis.

In this sense, the pseudosciences of good differ little from traditional religions, as both are based on this inversion of the most ideal practice of philosophy. One of the only major differences between them, as I have already postulated in other texts, is that traditional religions express an anti-intellectualism, a belief based on faith or suspension of logical-rational thinking, while political ideologies, especially those of left, and which can also be categorized as pseudosciences (which I also added the sarcastic complement "of good"), express a pseudo intellectualism, basically the same as anti-intellectualism, only aiming to pass itself off as science or philosophy, as a species of falsification of reason, not necessarily as an explicit denial of it.

Razões para ser ou se tornar um progressista dissidente às esquerdas marxista e identitário-burguesa/Reasons to be or become a progressive dissident to the Marxist and bourgeois-identitarian Lefts

 Ambas, apesar de se declararem como progressistas, na verdade, são regressistas (em relação à melhorias sociais), porque, mesmo se bem intencionadas*, se baseiam em crenças, ideias e/ou pensamentos que destoam variavelmente dos fatos e de análises mais ponderadas, se comportando como "pseudociências do bem", em que ocorre uma inversão da ordem de ouro da sabedoria e, portanto, da justiça, em que a moralidade, ou o que se considera como certo ou errado, determina o que se considera como falso ou verdadeiro, e não, primeiro, a busca pela verdade objetiva e imparcial como determinante moral. E quando muitas dessas crenças, ideias ou pensamentos se concretizam como políticas públicas, tendem a prejudicar, a médio e longo prazo, mas mesmo a curto prazo, inclusive os próprios "progressistas". Por exemplo, políticas de multiculturalismo e/ou imigração em massa, sem controle, em que ocorre a entrada e o aumento de indivíduos vindos de culturas machistas e homofóbicas ao país que os recebe, e que também tendem a apresentar capacidades cognitivas baixas, incluindo a de racionalidade (traços mais intrínsecos, geralmente, pouco reativos à intervenções sociais ou educativas), causando um aumento proporcional de violência e outros tipos de conflitos diretamente relacionados a essas diferenças culturais, psicológicas e cognitivas intratáveis. E ainda associado a isso, só para piorar um pouco mais, existe a imposição do politicamente correto ou polícia de pensamento "de esquerda", que tolera a intolerância importada e penaliza dissidentes ideológicos que criticam essas políticas...

* Se em relação às suas "elites", é pouco provável...

Já em relação à esquerda marxista ou revolucionária, "de raiz", a mesma, enquanto se diz a favor da democracia, defende ditaduras como Cuba, China e Irã, por se declararem "socialistas" ou como antagonistas aos EUA e seus aliados; faz o mesmo com países historicamente "socialistas", como a extinta URSS, fazendo pouco caso sobre os seus múltiplos crimes cometidos enquanto existiu... Enfim, apresenta o mesmo fanatismo extremo de seita ou culto, incapaz de uma autocrítica ponderada, de evoluir além do nível muito baixo de coerência moral e intelectual em que se posiciona desde a primeira revolução "popular", na Rússia. Por isso que também não tem como seguir apenas a lógica progressista, de defesa pela justiça social, e continuar alinhado ideologicamente à pelo menos uma das esquerdas principais.

Both, despite declaring themselves to be progressive, are actually regressive (in relation to social improvements), because, even if well-intentioned*, they are based on beliefs, ideas and/or thoughts that vary from facts and more considered analyses. , behaving like "pseudosciences of good", in which there is an inversion of the golden order of wisdom and, therefore, of justice, in which morality, or what is considered right or wrong, determines what is considered false or true, and not, first, the search for objective and impartial truth as a moral determinant. And when many of these beliefs, ideas or thoughts materialize as public policies, they tend to harm, in the medium and long term, but even in the short term, including the "progressives" themselves. For example, policies of multiculturalism and/or mass, uncontrolled immigration, in which the entry and increase of individuals from sexist and homophobic cultures occurs in the country that receives them, and who also tend to have low cognitive abilities, including of rationality (more intrinsic traits, generally not very reactive to social or educational interventions), causing a proportional increase in violence and other types of conflicts directly related to these intractable cultural, psychological and cognitive differences. And also associated with this, just to make things a little worse, there is the imposition of political correctness or "left-wing" thought police, which tolerates imported intolerance and penalizes ideological dissidents who criticize these policies...

* If in relation to your "elites", it is unlikely...

In relation to the Marxist or revolutionary left, while it claims to be in favor of democracy, it defends dictatorships such as Cuba, China and Iran, for declaring themselves "socialist" or as antagonists to the USA and its allies; does the same with historically "socialist" countries, such as the extinct USSR, making light of its multiple crimes committed while it existed... In short, it presents the same extreme fanaticism of a sect or cult, incapable of thoughtful self-criticism, of evolving beyond of the very low level of moral and intellectual coherence at which it has been positioned since the first "popular" revolution in Russia. That's why there's no way to just follow the progressive logic, defending social justice, and continue ideologically aligned with at least one of the main lefts.

Variações de pseudociências/Pseudoscience Variations

 Entre as pseudociências, existe um espectro de variação de legitimidade científica, de modo que, algumas pseudociências estão mais próximas de uma ciência verdadeira do que outras. Nesse texto, usarei exemplos para ilustrar suas diferenças. 

1. Pseudociência mais evidente 

Se fundamenta em ideias, pensamentos e/ou métodos muito fracos em legitimidade científica, também pelo absurdo lógico e audacioso de condenar a validade factual ou empírica de conhecimentos básicos. Tem o potencial mais baixo (porém, existente) de infiltração no governo e na educação superior e, portanto, de causar problemas sociais. 

Terra Plana 

É um bom exemplo de pseudociência mais evidente, por se tratar de uma crença carente de evidências científicas sobre o formato do planeta Terra, de que seria plano e não arredondado (geóide, em forma de elipse), que almeja invalidar as bases desse conhecimento. 

2. Pseudociência mais típica 

Se fundamenta em ideias, pensamentos e/ou métodos com baixa legitimidade científica, fracamente fundamentados em hipóteses lógicas ou fatos, mas com maior potencial de convencimento do que a primeira categoria de pseudociência e, portanto, de causar problemas à sociedade. 

Anti-vacina

É um bom exemplo de pseudociência típica, por ainda apresentar alguma lógica, mesmo que insuficiente para se sustentar integral e racionalmente, tal como a de que, tomar vacinas pode estar relacionado a um enfraquecimento do sistema imunológico ou que algumas vacinas podem ter efeitos colaterais graves. Então, essa segunda afirmação não está totalmente equivocada, porque pode acontecer, mas em casos específicos, como no caso das vacinas de RNA que foram desenvolvidas em caráter de urgência para a pandemia de COVID-19 e estão associadas a uma rara ocorrência de efeitos adversos. Mas isso não as invalida totalmente e nem as outras vacinas, ou suas capacidades de nos proteger de doenças infecciosas. Também não significa que apenas as vacinas que estão relacionadas com efeitos colaterais que os causam, mas também os próprios organismos de certos indivíduos que podem apresentar reações inadequadas à inoculação, por causa de fatores subjacentes. 

3. Pseudociência mais discreta ou mais próxima de uma ciência legítima 

Se fundamenta em ideias, pensamentos e/ou métodos que aparentam ser cientificamente legítimos, mas deixam uma boa margem de ceticismo quando são colocados à prova e, portanto, com grande potencial de ser rebaixada para uma categoria de pseudociência. Também apresenta uma maior capacidade de convencimento, de tal maneira que muitas desse tipo já se encontram infiltradas dentro das universidades, usurpando os espaços das verdadeiras ciências que falsificam (são, em sua maioria, de "pseudociências do bem", que eu comentei nesse texto: "Sobre as 'pseudociências do bem', 'de esquerda' e o mais grave").

Epigenética 

É cientificamente legítima a ideia de que o meio pode ou impacta os organismos dos seres vivos. Mas a epigenética parece que exagera essa ideia ao ponto de desprezar o papel da genética ou da própria biologia no desenvolvimento e no comportamento de humanos e de animais de outras espécies, delegando-a uma menor influência, ao invés de considerá-la e de que até pode ser mais influente que o meio, desprezando as evidências indiretas que a corroboram, baseadas nos padrões verdadeiros que têm sido percebidos sobre hereditariedade de características psicológicas e cognitivas e sobre a estabilidade expressiva dessas características a longo prazo ou sua baixa responsividade à intervenções sociais. 

Um exemplo complexo de pseudociência que pode cair, ao mesmo tempo, em mais de uma das categorias propostas: negacionismo das diferenças sexuais de natureza biológica, base para a ideologia do transexualismo. Porque se trata de uma distorção de um conhecimento básico, a sexualidade humana, que o torna mais similar a uma pseudociência mais evidente ao mesmo tempo que apela para recursos teóricos mais sutis de deturpação teórica que o torna mais próximo a uma pseudociência típica. 

Among pseudosciences, there is a spectrum of variation in scientific legitimacy, so that some pseudosciences are closer to true science than others. In this text, I will use examples to illustrate their differences.

1. Most obvious pseudoscience

It is based on ideas, thoughts and/or methods that are very weak in scientific legitimacy, also due to the logical and audacious absurdity of condemning the factual or empirical validity of basic knowledge. It has the lowest (but existing) potential to infiltrate government and higher education and therefore cause social problems.

Flat Earth

It is a good example of more evident pseudoscience, as it is a belief lacking scientific evidence about the shape of planet Earth, that it would be flat and not rounded (geoid, in the shape of an ellipse), which aims to invalidate the bases of this knowledge.

2. More typical pseudoscience

It is based on ideas, thoughts and/or methods with low scientific legitimacy, weakly based on logical hypotheses or facts, but with greater potential to convince than the first category of pseudoscience and, therefore, to cause problems for society.

Anti-vaccine

It is a good example of typical pseudoscience, as it still presents some logic, even if insufficient to support itself fully and rationally, such as that taking vaccines may be related to a weakening of the immune system or that some vaccines may have serious side effects. . So, this second statement is not completely wrong, because it can happen, but in specific cases, as in the case of RNA vaccines that were developed urgently for the COVID-19 pandemic and are associated with a rare occurrence of adverse effects. . But this does not completely invalidate them or other vaccines, or their ability to protect us from infectious diseases. It also does not mean that only vaccines that are related to side effects cause them, but also the organisms of certain individuals that may present inadequate reactions to the inoculation, due to underlying factors.

3. More discreet pseudoscience or closer to legitimate science

It is based on ideas, thoughts and/or methods that appear to be scientifically legitimate, but leave a good margin of skepticism when put to the test and, therefore, have great potential for being demoted to the category of pseudoscience. It also has a greater ability to convince, in such a way that many of this type are already infiltrated within universities, usurping the spaces of the true sciences that they falsify (they are, for the most part, "pseudosciences of good", which I commented on in this text : "On the 'pseudosciences of good', 'left-wing' and the most serious").

Epigenetics

The idea that the environment can or does impact the organisms of living beings is scientifically legitimate. But epigenetics seems to exaggerate this idea to the point of disregarding the role of genetics or biology itself in the development and behavior of humans and animals of other species, delegating less influence to it, instead of considering it and that it may even be more influential than the environment, disregarding the indirect evidence that corroborates it, based on the true patterns that have been perceived about the heritability of psychological and cognitive characteristics and about the expressive stability of these characteristics in the long term or their low responsiveness to social interventions.

A complex example of pseudoscience that can fall, at the same time, into more than one of the proposed categories: denial of sexual differences of a biological nature, the basis for the ideology of transsexualism. Because it is a distortion of basic knowledge, human sexuality, which makes it more similar to a more evident pseudoscience while at the same time appealing to more subtle theoretical distortion that make it closer to a typical pseudoscience.

Another list of necessary provocations

 . Another [absolute] "left" contradiction

Left: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is relative and subjective. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity"

Also on the left: "Study (carried out by professional ideologues disguised as scientists) 'proves' that racial miscegenation makes people more beautiful"

Is beauty just subjective and relative or is it objective???

2. The typical activist is an idealist and an excessive pragmatist, because he dreams and idealizes too much, always searching for an unrealistic "perfection", based on attempts at ideological and practical purification. And if it weren't enough to dream too much, he still has a desire to put everything he imagines and dreams, without logical-rational rigor, into practice.

3. For the most rational, living with the most irrational is a kind of torture, not only because of their chronic inability to think in a thoughtful, impartial and objective manner, but also to act in the same way

3.1 Other factors responsible for the great difficulty in coexistence between the more and the less rational are: the more peaceful nature of the former, a result of their tendency to avoid conflicts, and the opposite pattern for the latter; and a tendency to approach social interactions based on the principle of reciprocity, while the less rational tend to do so indifferently to this principle, in a more convenient and selfish way

3.2 The most rational is the natural enemy of any "political correctness" or censorship of thought, especially if it concerns the most considered thought

4. About the "normie"

Pejorative term for those who consider themselves or are objectively identified as "normal"

One of the main differences between them and others, or "us", is that they tend to interpret reality only based on their personal contexts, instead of also seeking to do so from a more impartial or panoramic perspective. This is why the "normie" has difficulty perceiving what happens beyond the narratives that predominate in their social cycle.

5. The most literal expression of kindness is the practice of rational justice, which is often not in line with the most popular conception of kindness, since fairness/justice, in its most ideal sense, based on evidence, does not always result in compassion

6. A person can be naive about some issues and smart about others

7. Irrational stupidity of course irritates the most rational. But cruelty irritates him much more

8. There are atheists and agnostics who believe in the social rather than intrinsic nature of both religious belief and unbelief, and in the durability and depth of the recent secularization observed especially in the younger generations in Western countries. However, it is not enough that it is not true that all self-declared irreligious people are atheists and that atheistic and theistic susceptibilities are just products of imposed socialization, the persistence of fertility differences between the least and most religious is likely to increase the demographic representation of the second group. in the coming decades

9. About segregation and free association

Not all segregation is bad, in the sense of irrational. For example, free association, which is a type of self-segregation

10. Brazil is a country full of muscles and scarce of brains

11. Living with ideological fanatics, especially those on the left, forces us to "pretend dementia", that is, to agree with (almost) everything they say, when we are interacting with them in a friendly manner. Also because we need to agree with or repeat their dogmatic narratives and become vigilant about any spontaneous flash of reasoning that challenges them, even more so if it is intelligent or factually accurate.

12. Humanists ask us to nurture an unconditional love for human beings, that is, the most cruel and destructive species of all

13. Every bourgeois leftist who claims to have great affection for the poorest should be forced to live with them for at least two years

14. In 1984, war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength...

Because in our totalitarian societies, currently under the political correctness of the bourgeois "left", moderation is extremism, just like being against mass immigration policies or in favor of countries remaining, ethnically speaking, the way they have been for many centuries, also because of the long and problematic history of multiculturalism

15. There is a considerable amount of despicable people in all social classes, differentiating themselves according to the stereotypes of their group

16. About the arrogance of academics and any type of identitarians

Academics do not have a total monopoly on knowledge, as many think they do, because they can produce works of dubious intellectual quality and present opinions devoid of scientific and philosophical rigor (I must say, this happens with infamous frequency) and because individuals of outside universities can also know more than "experts with degrees" and can even, in fact, contributing positively to a certain area of human knowledge, even if they are not recognized or if they are not "officially accredited"

Identitarians do not have a monopoly or absolute control over the identity by which they most identify, even if they think so and believe they have the competence to analyze and judge others' level of correspondence through self-identification. Therefore, for example, a person who says they are "progressive" may not have enough competence to judge the level of "progressiveness" of the colleague next to them (a reality that seems to be very common/in this case, the majority of those who declare themselves as such tend to deviate from the most basic principles of the ideologies they adopt as discourse and/or identity), because self-identification does not necessarily mean that there is a significant correspondence with the pet identity, with characteristics or values, and with their most consistent practices. And no, it's not a case of the "true Scotsman fallacy", because there are defined criteria for most political, ideological and/or cultural identities, although, depending on the identity, these criteria may be less specific or more vague.

17. "It's your fault for being alone"

In fact, the "fault" may not lie solely with the individual, because people with unusual personality characteristics or in potentially permanent non-ideal contexts may be more likely to be rejected by others. For example, it is not uncommon for more rational individuals to end up with fewer friends or even being lonely throughout their lives. Because, with the exception of wealth and beauty, exceptionalities tend to alienate rather than attract. Another example is autistic individuals, more specifically those with "mild autism", more capable of typical social interaction and, therefore, also more exposed to its friction.

18. "Non-adaptation" can also be a type of adaptation

If not every environment is adaptable to a given profile, then not adapting to it, seeking to minimize the negative impacts of this non-adaptation, when it is not possible to move to another environment, may be more appropriate than trying to adapt. Sometimes it's not worth the effort

19. Only humanitarian eugenics... by coercion and financial compensation for birth control of individuals from specific groups and/or encouragement from other groups, to turn the vast majority of underdeveloped countries into developed ones, since the most important factor that prevents is precisely the qualitative and average difference in cognitive abilities between its populations

20. If you want an example of the evolution of the human species, don't come to Brazil, as progressive degeneration predominates here

21. It's hard to know who is worse, the insensitive right-winger or the disingenuous left-winger

22. A person who is terrible to another and without rational justification, that is, who acts in a very unfair way, but is good to several others, is as bad as a person who is bad to several others and good to one (or with a few)

23. It is common for an ideology to express itself like a human individual who, instead of prioritizing his strengths, does so with his weaknesses. Because, from this perspective, the practically causal relationship between deficiency in self-knowledge and irrationality becomes "visible".

A great example is the egalitarian ideology, which has been the basis for "Western progressism", and which, instead of acting as its main strength, weakens it excessively through its pseudoscientific denial of the intrinsic differences of individuals and groups. humans

24. The new and old tactic of those who believe in deities is to assert that nature or "creation" is definitive proof of divine existence...

25. There are many types of insane people, but the craziest of all is the one who puts himself and others in danger, guided by unrealistic expectations or foolish thoughts. This is why the "left", particularly its 'religious' belief in human equality, from this perspective, makes it more insane than the "right".

26. Without the ton of "good" pseudosciences and pseudo-philosophy, human sciences, as they are basic knowledge, serve perfectly as a survival guide, even as a complement to first aid

27. There is no behavior more disgusting and revolting than brutal and sadistic violence or violence without just cause. Because one of the groups that practice it most, that is, in disproportionate terms, are black and brown men. So this is why this supposedly anti-racist activism, increasingly dominant in Western media, "education" and government, is so unfair.

About the "pseudosciences of good", "leftist", and the most serious

 Pseudosciences are scientifically unproven theories and techniques, with remote to zero potential for proof and which aim to pass themselves off as science. Homeopathy, astrology, Freudian theory, the anti-vaccine movement and flat earthism are examples of pseudosciences. Pseudoscience is a common type of pseudo-intellectualism, that is, a false philosophy, a supposed love for wisdom or knowledge, but which, in fact, expresses itself as its falsification.

An example of pseudo-intellectualism, relevant to this text, which is also expressed as pseudoscience is that of radical egalitarianism.

Although individuals from across the political-ideological spectrum adopt pseudosciences or "pseudo-intellectualisms" as primary references for interpreting reality, these types of intellectual deviations seem to have been adopted more frequently by those who declare themselves "on the left".

Finally, there is a third deviation from wisdom, anti-intellectualism, in which, instead of passing itself off as knowledge, it denies it by appealing, generally explicitly, to the emotional, instinctive and subjective. A classic example of anti-intellectualism is religion, especially religious fundamentalism. The latter is adopted more frequently by individuals who declare themselves "right-wing".

Religion, as it has historically developed and constituted, can also be considered a false philosophy.

The difference between anti-intellectualism and pseudo-intellectualism is the same between a religious priest and a priest posing as a scientific authority.

So, despite the unprecedented advances in science/technology in recent centuries, pseudosciences continue to perpetuate themselves through the constant renewal of followers, also because the majority of human beings are more irrational than rational.

And, if thanks to relative secularization, primarily in Western societies, anti-intellectualism, particularly religion, has diminished its cultural influence, it seems that it has only been to replace it with pseudo-intellectualism within the main institutions, as in education, in the media and even in governments, passing off as knowledge and/or legitimate rational/philosophical judgments, being adopted as references for public policies and, from this, causing even more (serious) problems than solving existing ones.

I like to call these pseudosciences that are more ideologically aligned with the "left" "pseudosciences of good" because, in addition to behaving illegitimately like sciences and/or philosophy, they are also based on the prioritization of morality or moral discernment, than if considers as right or wrong, above rationality or intellectual discernment, of what is perceived as true or false, clearly an inversion of the "golden" order of wisdom in which, first, facts or evidence are prioritized and, then, judgment (moral) of how to act based on them. This is the same order of justice in its most appropriate practice, of impartial and objective thinking in search of truth, because the most fair is also what is most true or factual.

An example of the very negative impact of these "good" pseudosciences deeply infiltrated in the most important institutions in Western countries has been the imposition of a policy favorable to mass immigration and "multiculturalism" because it has altered the ethnic-racial composition of these countries, in addition also cause a large increase in crime and cultural conflicts. This policy has been based on the following assumptions*: the belief that the environment has a more determining influence on human beings than biology, informally called the "blank slate"; that human races do not exist and/or that their differences in behavior and intelligence are absolute reflections of their cultures and not also or mainly of their biology, that is, that they are only superficial; the same denialism also applied to differences between the sexes; and the adoption of anti-racist fallacies, particularly the narrative of "white guilt" as the dominant moral code, in which only white people of European origin who, in general, should be held morally responsible for the social and historical ills of other ethnic-racial groups, especially black people of African origin, which consists of a highly biased or distorted interpretation of historical facts and with implications that are opposed to true social justice, by placing all the blame on a vaguely defined group category and which, in fact, is of a "scapegoat", for not being the group most directly responsible for human ills throughout our history, the political-economic "elites".