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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Verbal IQ explaining a significant part of the paradox

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

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

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

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

2. IQ itself as an invalid measure of rational capacity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Being epistemically irrational as a primary adaptive strategy"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many individuals with high IQs are individualistic.

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

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

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

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

5. Rationality is not the same as erudition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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...

On Self-Awareness and Rationality

A crucial aspect of rational intelligence—one that is rarely discussed—is self-awareness. It is through self-awareness that we can analyze and evaluate our own thoughts and actions.

Scientifically speaking, this is known as metacognition.

It is not merely "thinking about thinking," because thought generally leads to behavior—whether directly, when thought and action align, or indirectly, when an underlying logic (such as contradiction or hypocrisy) persists despite an apparent inconsistency.

Self-awareness allows us to judge ourselves—our thoughts and our deeds. Consequently, we can review our conduct and decide whether or not to maintain it.

And what a difference that makes...

I have known people who appear—or appeared—to possess only the most rudimentary level of self-awareness. I say "have known" because some of them met tragic ends precisely because they were never truly capable of self-criticism—the kind that is effective, precise, measured, and constant.

Essentially, a person with underdeveloped self-awareness is far more likely to think and act based on emotional impulse. This leads them to commit errors, lapses, and frequent missteps that can come at a high cost later on. They are also far more prone to extreme stubbornness—and I do not use that term lightly.

They are the type who almost never truly examines themselves, and when they do attempt it, the process lacks depth or precision. They blindly forge paths that often bring more harm than good, persisting in their errors—frequently without even clearly distinguishing between what they are doing "right" and what they are doing "wrong." If psychiatry were a little less limited than it currently is, perhaps it would be possible to diagnose this specific type of irrationality disorder. 

Among disorders of irrationality, this one relates primarily to instrumental—or behavioral—rationality, while its connection to epistemic—or cognitive—rationality is secondary. Fundamentally, our political-ideological beliefs or our levels of specific and general knowledge are not critical factors for this type of disorder; I believe it is possible to have limited knowledge of the world one inhabits yet still detect errors in one’s own conduct and revise one’s actions or decisions. I also believe there is often a coherence gap between thought and action—a disconnect that can lead brilliant thinkers to act wrongly, while causing mediocre thinkers to make sensible life decisions.

I consider myself an example of this: for quite a few years, I pursued a misguided path based on decisions rooted in personal thoughts or beliefs. When I finally realized how wrong I had been, I managed to return to a healthier path—even as I simultaneously developed my epistemic rationality. Today, I view myself as a "patient" in remission—much like a recovering addict, though my "addiction" was not to narcotics. Instead, it involved unresolved internal issues that I dealt with by validating them—much like justifying a psychopathological condition (such as anxiety) or even adopting an identity around it, rather than simply treating it...

The most rational versus the most adapted

Ecologically speaking, a relationship is understood as parasitism when one species dominates, "zombifies," or deceives another for its own benefit. Thus, when a wasp species evolves to specialize in using ant colonies for its own organic development—without any benefit to the hosts (quite the contrary)—this is immediately recognized as a parasitic relationship. Yet, we also have collectivist colonies of insects—and of other categories of living beings, such as humans—where, even in the absence of such inter-species dynamics, the same structures of power or domination, submission, and sacrifice persist. Here, however, these dynamics play out between different classes within the same species. The primary victims are the classes evolutionarily compelled to sacrifice themselves for the collective to which they belong—and, ultimately, the individual and individuality itself. In non-human social species, however, individuality appears far more nominal—partly due to their lower levels of intelligence, consciousness, and perception of reality compared to ours. Consequently, its loss or absence goes unfelt—except by us, who possess it (albeit to varying degrees). Regarding the fundamental capacity to recognize risks or dangers, human rationality at its highest levels could be seen as a vast extension of this ability—an indisputable advantage. Yet, a major paradox arises and persists: adaptation often entails self-sacrifice without the individual knowing or being fully aware of their actions. This stands in stark contrast to the pinnacle of adaptive, evolutionary human intelligence—rationality itself. Another common synonym for adaptation is compatibility—a matter more of luck than of pure adaptive capacity (at least in the human sense of a "conscious ability to understand one's environment and adjust to it safely and beneficially"). For while this "fully conscious capacity" is virtually nonexistent or unattainable for non-human species, even among the most intelligent species, it proves to be far more variable than uniformly distributed.

The cult of IQ tests versus the scientific method and reality

 Hypothesis: (all) individuals (deemed gifted) who score above 135 on IQ tests are "geniuses" (highly creative, insightful, perfectionistic, talented... with great potential for achievement...) and are mentally balanced...

Method: scientific...

(Lewis Terman's famous longitudinal study)

Around 1,500 Californian children who scored 135 or higher on IQ tests were selected to participate in a long-term study aimed at observing and analyzing their life trajectories into old age.

Result: they grew up to become, on average, professionally successful adults who were healthier and more socially adjusted than the general population. However, no disproportionate number of high-impact scientific, philosophical, or artistic achievements—or instances of "genius"—was observed within this group.

Note: two of the children who were rejected for scoring below the established threshold of 135 or higher went on to distinguish themselves as adults through exceptional creative achievements (William Shockley and Luis Alvarez)...

Despite these facts, a cult-like reverence for cognitive tests has been fostered—one clearly marked by misunderstanding and/or ignorance regarding human intelligence itself. Here is a simple list of the main dogmas or misconceptions held by those who worship IQ:

- There are no multiple "intelligences" / human intelligence is not multifaceted, or it consists solely of what cognitive tests "measure" and estimate (convergent learning potential);

-- IQ = intelligence;

-- Creativity is not a (psycho)cognitive sub-domain separate from convergent learning/memorization;

-- Gifted = genius;

- People with high IQs are [absolutely] more intelligent than people with average or low IQs; -- People with high IQs are "geniuses" precisely because of their scores;

-- People with relatively low scores on cognitive tests are "mentally deficient";

- If there are high-IQ individuals [the majority] who show no significant creative achievements throughout their lives, the reason is never a lack of potential for creativity *per se*, but rather society's fault or a lack of motivation;

- Only the main test scores matter, because differences in subtests are irrelevant;

- Due to the *g* factor, most people show little variation in their cognitive abilities...

What IQ fetishists think, in essence:

"A person who scores high to very high on cognitive tests is automatically a 'genius'."

Reality:

High scores on cognitive tests reflect, on average, greater capabilities regarding memory, verbal, arithmetic, spatial, and reasoning "intelligences," and/or convergent learning. Students who—in my parents' day—were called "nerds" for consistently getting the highest grades in school are also the most likely to score high on IQ tests, because both assessments focus on the same facets of human intelligence. There are exceptions to this rule—for instance, students who would score high on IQ tests but lack interest in what teachers are presenting and end up being more lax about their classroom performance, usually because they are self-motivated in their pursuit of knowledge and/or are ahead of their class level.

Creativity plays a decisive role in genius; thus, it is possible to be highly intelligent—depending on the specific set of abilities—without being particularly creative or becoming a "genius." However, every "genius" stands out precisely because of their creative achievements. Therefore, to identify individuals with the greatest creative potential—perhaps even at an extraordinary level—it might be better to focus on those who score highest on cognitive tests of divergent thinking and/or possess strong intrinsic motivation. Instead of just looking for "nerds," we should seek out all children and adolescents//adults who display intense passions—typically for specific fields like astronomy, the arts, history, or paleontology.

"Your vote is worth the same as theirs."

 And a major problem with this primarily logical and correct thinking

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

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

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

But how would that work??

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

Are you more cognitively oriented toward perceiving patterns or feelings?

 Or both, more often?

About "cognitive orientation"

If you are more oriented toward perceiving patterns, this may indicate a greater rational capacity. To think more objectively and impartially, prioritizing factual information and differentiating it from non-factual information, it is important to first pay attention to patterns. These are constitutive traits that repeat themselves and make elements, phenomena, behaviors, or events potentially recognizable, especially those of an abstract nature, which are most relevant to rationality. A negative correlation with this type of cognitive orientation is a tendency toward emotional insensitivity. Pathologically, certain conditions such as autism* and psychopathy may be more common in this group.

Men and scientists are two examples of groups more likely to exhibit this more logical type of cognitive orientation.

However, I believe that there are highly rational individuals who exhibit a more balanced orientation, directed toward both pattern perception and feelings. I even wonder if they might be the most rational of the most rational, since this more balanced cognitive orientation can further enhance one's ability to reflect...

However, if you are more oriented toward perceiving feelings, this may indicate a greater tendency to be more sympathetic, to feel more affection and compassion for others. A negative correlation of this type of cognitive orientation is an increased risk of distorting factual perception by prioritizing feelings, and doing so systematically. Another negative correlation is presenting a higher level of Machiavellianism, giving little importance to honesty and truth...

Women and artists are two examples of groups more likely to exhibit this more emotive or intuitive type of orientation.

Finally, there are those who exhibit a more random orientation, and they may represent a significant % of the population, as is typical of a trait distribution in which less extreme expressions are more common. But if both types of cognitive orientation also express differences between the sexes, then, due to more pronounced human sexual dimorphism, this more balanced type may not correspond to the majority...

* Still on this topic, another text

Autism and pattern recognition ability: myth or reality??

That a compensatory and generalized effect of autism would be a significant improvement in pattern recognition ability, compared to the neurotypical level...

Okay. But about true patterns?? And in relation to which domain? Specific or global??

Because if they were truly better at this ability in a more general sense, then the vast majority of them, for example, would end up perceiving patterns related to one of the most basic realities from a human perspective: the intrinsic differences between individuals and human groups, and that would force them to share this perception with individuals who declare themselves or are declared "far right." But the correlations between autism and political affiliation tend to show us a relatively different pattern, with a disproportion of them identifying with the "left," precisely "where" this reality has been systematically denied and demonized, and for non-rational reasons: emotional and ideological... So, would this disproportion of autistics who ally themselves politically with the "left" do so, on average, knowing that they are defending untruths that, as a rule, are based on false patterns?? And would they ally themselves simply because it is the "left" that has fought for their rights?? Or would they be as vulnerable to ideological indoctrination as left-wing "neurotypicals"?? Well, the positive correlation between autism and social contagion with transgender ideology is yet another demonstration of the psychological and cognitive vulnerability of several individuals within the spectrum...

It may be that this alleged superior pattern recognition ability of most autistic individuals is true, but especially for specific domains, if, from a more general perspective, the contrary evidence seems to be predominant...

It may be that autistic individuals are indeed more cognitively oriented toward pattern perception, but in a psychopathological sense, toward perceiving primarily irrelevant patterns, especially from a more social perspective, just as individuals within the psychotic spectrum, considered the opposite of autism in some comparative aspects, would be more oriented toward perceiving an excess of patterns, especially those that do not exist or express perceptual distortions.

Still regarding the correlation between autism and political orientation, the same disproportion of autistic individuals on one side of the political-ideological spectrum also seems to be perceived on the other side, which, in any case, continues to corroborate the thesis that denies a practically causal relationship between being autistic and presenting an increased capacity for pattern recognition, especially in a more global sense.

The difference between dogma and factual and/or rational assertion

 It's not just or intrinsically a difference in flexibility of thought, but in how factual that thought is, because there are, of course, conclusive statements that express a fact or an objective truth. This is one way I've found to differentiate dogma from a conclusive statement that expresses a fact or an objective truth, since it doesn't seem sufficient to me to define dogma as synonymous with inflexibility, but rather to use a statement that is also fallacious or untrue, so as to highlight the irrational nature of insisting on what is not true—that is, of, in certain cases, being inflexible, even if there is nothing primarily wrong, in an intellectual sense, in making conclusive statements that express facts. Secondarily, in these cases, only the moral or ethical question can be raised.

One of my biggest disappointments: "highly intelligent" people

They promise a lot and deliver little... Especially in emotional and rational terms.

My personal experience and my general impression of these people, who are recognized as highly intelligent by conventional criteria, have not been good. Because I've expected them to be more rational or sensible, creative, and emotionally intelligent. In short, according to the very concept of human intelligence, present in any dictionary. However, at least in my experience and also based on my observations of typically "high IQ" groups, what I've noticed is the opposite of what is expected of those who are socially considered the "most intelligent." If, instead of sensibility, I've perceived in them a strong attraction or vulnerability to ideological indoctrination, and this usually means an excessive attachment to irrational beliefs; Instead of creativity, I've noticed in them a tendency toward cognitive rigidity, as they seem more tacitly intolerant or incapable of dealing with dissenting opinions. Perhaps they lack a fully developed capacity for self-criticism, which isn't limited to a less than objective and impartial self-reflection and which, in turn, results in a constant appeal to rationalizing thoughts and actions, including their own mistakes. And, finally, a sense of a tendency toward coldness or emotional imbalance among them, that is, a limited capacity to understand personal or emotional contexts, of others and of themselves, which makes their social relationships more difficult. Ultimately, I've noticed in them (qualitative) variations of the same phenomenon: stupidity, which, in theory, one wouldn't expect to see more frequently in the group considered the "most intelligent." Scientists/academics, journalists, teachers, high-level artists...

Um truque comum entre indivíduos "de alto QI"/A common trick among "high IQ" individuals

Talvez o truque mais comum, é o de racionalizarem suas deficiências (comprovadas ou comprováveis) em outras facetas da inteligência humana, além das capacidades técnicas em que tendem a ser excelentes, nomeadamente de inteligência emocional e de racionalidade. Em outras palavras, de racionalizarem suas crenças irracionais e/ou julgamentos insensatos com explicações inteligentes, pelo uso de suas altas capacidades cognitivas quantitativas, especialmente as linguísticas, mas que os mantêm à margem de um desenvolvimento mais robusto de suas capacidades racionais e emocionais, ou capacidades qualitativas... Paradoxalmente falando, é o mesmo que usarem as capacidades cognitivas em que são mais inteligentes, mas contra outras capacidades, para continuarem menos inteligentes do que poderiam ser, inclusive em um sentido mais objetivo e decisivo de inteligência, que é a própria razão... Claro que tendem a fazer isso sem ter o pleno entendimento do que estão fazendo, de que estão se prejudicando intelectualmente, talvez um custo-benefício que, para eles, valha a pena, se costuma estar associado com a adaptação social especialmente em contextos humanos tipicamente dominados pela irracionalidade.

Perhaps the most common trick is to rationalize their deficiencies (proven or provable) in other facets of human intelligence, beyond the technical capabilities in which they tend to excel, namely emotional intelligence and rationality. In other words, rationalizing their irrational beliefs and/or senseless judgments with intelligent explanations, using their high quantitative cognitive capacities, especially linguistic ones, but which keep them on the margins of a more robust development of their rational and emotional capacities, or qualitative capacities... Paradoxically speaking, it's the same as using the cognitive capacities in which they are most intelligent, but against other capacities, to remain less intelligent than they could be, including in a more objective and decisive sense of intelligence, which is reason itself... Of course, they tend to do this without fully understanding what they are doing, that they are harming themselves intellectually, perhaps a cost-benefit that, for them, is worth it, if it is usually associated with social adaptation, especially in human contexts typically dominated by irrationality.

Two more (possibly repeated) thoughts about intelligence

 Two more (possibly repeated) thoughts about intelligence

Learning difficulty or disability?

The first expression, learning DIFFICULTY, is the one most commonly used, especially in the contexts of education and psychology. However, as I've mentioned before, perhaps it would be better if this expression were limited to personal contexts in which a true learning potential is perceived, which has been hampered by factors external to the individual. Therefore, the learning DISABILITY/LIMITATION could be generalized to other contexts. If, in fact, a persistent inability is very likely a permanent phenotype and not just a condition that can be completely reversed or resolved. And to accept it as it is, without this unrealistic belief that we have indefinite potential, especially in intellectual terms, so popular in "postmodern" times...

What is the most primary cause of a deficiency in rational (objective and impartial) thought?

While personality plays an important role in this context, it may also be that the cognitive aspect influences more primarily, because it is or appears to be more structural than the psychological aspect, and that this influence is therefore reflected in behavior. For example, difficulties with cognitive flexibility and autonomous reasoning, especially in the sense of "the ability to perceive true or feasible patterns," may be causal and antecedent factors that direct individuals, who present them, toward ideological fanaticism (or religious fundamentalism), which, in turn, expresses itself precisely as an inflexibility of thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. But it's not just a question of inflexibility, it's also a question of extreme subjectivity, which perhaps best defines both fanaticism and irrationality: a chronic inability to think objectively and impartially, or less personally, in which this adulteration of perception occurs, a kind of intoxication with one's own references supported by a preferred and restricted set of dogmatic beliefs that are predominantly unrealistic or distorted.

Again, the paradox of impartiality

However, it may also be that high rational capacity itself is simply another type of subjectivity, characteristically less extreme, that cannot be universally developed or achieved, as I have concluded. Returning to an older thought of mine on the same topic, in which I argue that rationality also has a bias, but a bias toward the anti-bias...

The essence of linguistic intelligence is also one of the most important cognitive aspects of rationality

 In a previous text, I said that the most important aspect of linguistic intelligence is not what has been most socially considered as such: vocabulary size and sophistication and proficiency in learning languages, but what is most essential to language, not just human language: the capacity for communication and factual understanding (of lived reality). Therefore, it seems logical to understand that the essence of language, or linguistic intelligence, is also a very important aspect of rational capacity, if we can only understand, as well as misunderstand, reality through language. Therefore, it is the precision and objectivity of language, coupled with greater factual understanding, that massively contribute to greater rationality. This is in addition to the ability to perceive true or feasible patterns, which I had already identified as a cognitive aspect of rational capacity.

Pattern perception as a basic cognitive expression of rationality (and one more thought on the same topic)

 I have already talked about this in other texts. In this one, I try to be more objective.

I must have already mentioned that rationality can be considered a contextualization in the real world of pattern perception; in which those IQ test questions to find the pattern of a numerical sequence are replaced by questions and analyses of patterns of the most diverse orders in the real world. So, high rational capacity would also be a more developed capacity for pattern perception, but of true patterns, which would be its most important cognitive aspect: attention and the ability to perceive patterns of recurrence and variation, also in an abstract, statistical sense... extrapolating beyond the perception of physical or chemical phenomena. In other words, to perceive reality itself and to expand one's understanding of it beyond the basics that the senses can capture. But also to establish oneself in the most important or relevant perspectives, which is what matters most in a realistic sense. In other words, a perceptive capacity more directly linked to survival, but also in a more holistic, objective, impartial, preventive, medium to long-term sense than typically subjective, partial, remedial and short-term. The difference between seeking to understand the world in order to adapt or survive to it, and doing so in the opposite order, in which it is the mode of adaptation and survival that dictates what will be considered true or false. The example of religion, if its sensation, on average, is more pleasant for those who adopt it as a personal belief, usually contributes to the emotional and social adjustment of the individual, and then, it comes to be treated as an absolute truth, precisely because of the direct link that is established between personal benefit and determination of truth, by the logic "the thought that does me good, is because it is an absolute truth".

2. If I haven't said it before, again.

Relationship between levels of consciousness (realistic, surrealistic and hyperrealistic) and levels of rationality

The first is a thought of my own, about how consciousness would express itself in a hierarchy of qualitative and quantitative expression, in which its lowest levels (realistic) would be variably more instinctive: restricted, strict, pragmatic... And its highest levels, more contemplative and existentialist (hyperrealistic). So, the relationship between the two hierarchies of expression would be as follows: the lowest levels of consciousness, the first layer of attention and understanding of the world, would express non-rational levels*. These levels represent the "animal kingdom" of consciousness. The intermediate or surrealist levels, the second layer of attention and understanding of the world, would express lower levels of rationality, which represent the "ideological kingdom", common to most human beings. Finally, the highest levels, or hyperrealists (philosophical kingdom), would express the highest levels of consciousness, attention and understanding of the world, and therefore also of rationality.

* Based on my thinking that non-human animals cannot be rational, but neither can be irrational, if they have not evolved intellectually and cognitively to the level of reason, it would be the same as saying that humans are deficient in the ability to fly, after all, we have not evolved physically to become capable of flying either. And if irrationality is synonymous with stupidity, which makes no sense at the level of adaptive logic of other species, it would be the same as saying that fish are stupid because they do not know how to walk on dry land, even though the comparison of intelligence has its validity, but is restricted to itself, so that it is possible to trace a progressive line of cognitive evolution between species (humans are more intelligent than fish), but it is not possible to categorically state that a species is intrinsically "stupid" (fish are only stupid because they are less intelligent than humans). Again, the same idea that an existing context of possibility is necessary, otherwise it is not even a comparison between apples and pears, different within the same category, but between apples and stones, from different categories.

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.

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

 What is more irrational, mediocrity or madness??

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

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

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

Sobre detecção de padrões e racionalidade /On pattern detection and rationality

 A racionalidade se principia basicamente pela detecção contextualizada de padrões. Então, se temos aquele famoso teste de inteligência, das matrizes, em que se busca encontrar padrões em uma sequência numérica, a racionalidade consiste primariamente na contextualização desta capacidade tão básica para nós. De "encontre o número subsequente de (0,2,6,14, ?)" para "encontre padrões correlativos ou causais de comportamentos entre grupos humanos", por exemplo...

Rationality basically begins with the contextualized detection of patterns. So, if we have that famous intelligence test, the matrices, in which we seek to find patterns in a numerical sequence, rationality consists primarily in the contextualization of this ability that is so basic to us. From "find the subsequent number of (0,2,6,14, ?)" to "find correlative or causal patterns of behavior among human groups", for example...