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.

About Renan Santos

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

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

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

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

An example of pathological altruism on the Right: radical anti-abortionism

 I frequently encounter individuals—at least in certain debates and on specific topics—who are hysterical, emotionally driven, and consequently predominantly irrational, and who tend to identify as left-wing on the political-ideological spectrum. My years of debating on social media have led me to conclude that they are the most irrational group, given the frequency of these encounters. Yet, sporadically, the other side of this human cockfighting ring—orchestrated by the political class—also presents itself to me in a despicable light; this happens when I advocate for common sense, only for a similar horde of irrational, emotionally charged individuals to appear and defend absurdities that ought to be as obvious to any adult human being as they are to me and others who recognize them as such. Not to mention the personal attacks and other fallacies they often pass off as "arguments"... Of course, different topics tend to inflame different types of people. Perhaps "uber-capitalists" aren't as easily triggered by the topic of abortion—or at least no more so than traditionalists are. This very topic was addressed on Instagram by Nine Borges—a highly intelligent Brazilian influencer and academic—who took a completely radical stance against the practice. I have written about abortion before and reached a conclusion—which seems the only reasonable one when approaching the topic with impartiality, objectivity, and careful consideration—that although it is a drastic measure, it cannot be banned in every single instance or scenario; there are important exceptions where the pregnant woman's health, dignity, and autonomy must also be taken into account. Yet, even after making it clear that I acknowledge these important exceptions and am not advocating for the trivialization of abortion, a horde of emotionally charged anti-abortionists appeared to attack me and defend absurdities: the idea that if a woman is raped, she must carry a completely unwanted and traumatic pregnancy for nine months because "human life is sacred"; the idea that she must sacrifice herself emotionally, even though terminating the pregnancy in the early days, weeks, or months—which would be the ideal course of action for anyone guided by common sense—is an option. I also considered an even worse scenario: a hypothetical woman who is raped and becomes pregnant while in a relationship—with a boyfriend or husband—and who, according to anti-abortion "wisdom," would apparently be expected to tough it out for nine months in that situation. I believe this represents an extreme, almost impossible test of resilience for an ordinary couple. Another scenario where abortion might be the recommended course of action is when the pregnancy poses a high risk to the pregnant woman's life. Of course, a Caesarean section is an option. However, if the pregnancy proves so dangerous that even a C-section cannot resolve the issue, resorting to abortion at any stage of the pregnancy to save the woman's life remains a possibility. This is one of the most extreme scenarios, even though the ideal approach is for any recommended termination to take place during the early days, weeks, or months. Because, indeed, those on the right tend to be more correct in asserting that a woman's autonomy over her body ends or diminishes significantly once she becomes pregnant—since she is no longer alone, but carrying a budding human life in her womb—and that life begins at conception. Yet, because we do not live in an ideal world where preventive measures are always sufficient to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (not to be confused with an unplanned one), this "morally right" stance in theory does not align perfectly with what is "most right" in practice. Ideally, people would avoid pregnancy through preventive means, given that abortion is a last resort—used only when all other preventive measures fail or are inaccessible. However, after being exposed to the arguments of radical anti-abortionists, it became clear to me that they champion a stance akin to veganism or the generous welcoming of poor immigrants and refugees: a moral purism that disregards real-world contexts, even if it is theoretically more correct. It is precisely a form of "pathological altruism" or unrealistic idealism—except that, in this instance, the ones being sacrificed are women who are pregnant due to rape, those facing high-risk pregnancies, or those lacking the psychological, cognitive, or social means to sustain a pregnancy or assume the role of a mother...

I also find it "amusing"—in a grim sense—to see the hypocrisy of invoking the "sanctity of human life" to argue for an absolute ban on abortion, while radical anti-abortionists (who are typically right-wing) often appear completely indifferent to the suffering of that same "sacred human life" once it is "outside the womb." For example, they may defend or justify the exploitation of workers by capitalist business owners—such as in debates regarding the end of

6x1 schedule...

Even the—primarily leftist—appeal to the "social standpoint" fallacy is used by radical anti-abortionists, especially women (as I witnessed during my "immersive experience" in that group). This is actually quite amusing, given that if I—as a man—lack the "identity-based authority" to speak about reproductive rights and women's bodily autonomy, then an abortion advocate who has actually had an abortion would possess the exact same authority as an anti-abortionist...

On personality, sexuality, organic and mental maturation, and their correlates (my hypothesis)

 What is personality, and what accounts for its diversity and trait variation?

This seems like a simple question—one most people can answer off the cuff: personality is a set of behavioral characteristics we exhibit (usually attributed only to humans, excluding other species). It is akin to defining what something *is*—its nature, essence, or fundamental origin. However, personality may be something more than just "itself." In this text, I propose a hypothesis—based on indirect evidence—that personality (and specifically its diversity and trait variation) is not merely a matter of behavioral characteristics; rather, in terms of fundamental origin or essence, it also reflects variations in a human being's level of maturation or optimal development.

I use "optimal" here to refer to basic functionality that meets the most elementary criteria within an evolutionary and adaptive context—which I will explain further below.

The idea is that personality traits themselves—some more than others—and the individual profiles formed by their varying levels of intensity or expression, are reflections of variations in maturation. Of course, a more evolutionary—and, I would argue, more adequate—definition of "human" personality is that of a set of behaviors, instincts, and emotions that are primarily and predominantly intrinsic, reactive in nature, and adaptive in function. Yet the crucial point here, once again, is not merely defining personality itself, but understanding its fundamental nature—what it originally represents or expresses—and whether it is valid (even if it might seem incomplete or insufficient) to apply both the initial concept mentioned earlier and the evolutionary one...

On the ideal level of maturation

All species, including humans, exhibit a developmental cycle and a pattern of behaviors—varying in its constraints—from birth to death. They all follow a sort of "script" for ideal development, wherein their bodies and minds (or their equivalents) pass through stages of maturation until they reach peak performance in the behaviors necessary for survival and replication. They are born, they grow or develop, and they reach organic maturity, at which point they become capable of sexual reproduction. Naturally, I am referring here primarily to sexually reproducing species...

Behaviors—or personality—are actually part of intelligence as well, though they represent its reactive aspects, whereas what we commonly term "intelligence" encompasses aspects of perception/ cognition, and learning. For instance, a bird’s ability to take flight, identify and protect itself from predators or rivals, and seek a mate of the opposite sex to form a reproductive and affective bond—all these signify a set of mature behaviors that birds lacking complete or ideal organic maturation cannot yet perform. Now, consider that it is not only these animals observed by human scientists in the wild that exhibit levels of behavioral maturation and variations therein; we, too, display such levels and variations. And this variation can be perceived or... ...reflect psychologically and cognitively? That might constitute personality itself?

There have been powerful civilizing forces that, over many generations, exerted pressure favoring the selection and dominance of certain human types capable of adapting to socially complex environments. This may explain why we hesitate to apply to ourselves certain observations scientists have made regarding the "animal" or "natural" world. While it is logical that a civilized human is not identical to a non-human animal living in a forest or savanna—even if a human from a tribe in closer contact with the natural world might be more comparable—this does not mean we cannot or should not apply the same logic we observe in other species to ourselves.

Of course, we must avoid the risk of falling into an "animalist fallacy"—ensuring the comparison does not devolve into an attempt to claim absolute equivalence...

One such principle is the existence—fundamentally universal, yet adapted to the specific contexts and evolutionary trajectories of each species—of an ideal "script" for organic development (including mental aspects), maturation, and behavior. We must not confuse this "ideal" with the more advanced philosophical or moral ideals we typically envision. I am not trying to dismiss the validity of those ideals—especially the forms of idealism we create or believe in, provided they are not unrealistic. I simply wish to point out that they are not, *a priori*, essential for understanding the hypothesis I am

proposing.

So, just as with any bird species, an adult human—under normal, or indeed ideal, conditions—should demonstrate the following essential competencies: risk identification and/or self-protection; adaptation to their (social) environment or self-regulation of behavior (which implies contributing to one's community, given that ours is a social species); and the ability to seek out partners of the opposite sex—or those who are reproductively compatible—to produce offspring. This holds true whether the individual lives in a city like New York, in the rural *Agreste* region of Northeastern Brazil, or even within an Amazonian tribe with minimal outside contact. Personality traits, and the intensity with which we express them, can serve as clues regarding how far we fall short of, exceed, or ideally align with these benchmarks of optimal (adaptive and evolutionary) behavior. To illustrate this, I will use the "Big Five" personality traits—a personality framework that has been scientifically replicated more than any other...

Indirect evidence from personality traits

Among the Big Five traits, one stands out particularly well as an example of a maturation level—whether permanent or transient: *Openness to Experience*. This trait refers primarily to our "inner world"—our imagination, thought processes, and the pursuit of new experiences or novelties (encompassing everything we seek to experience firsthand, including tangible activities like going for a walk or traveling). These represent levels of motivation or engagement—which is essentially what personality traits are. Consequently, there is variation in the intensity of these traits, both among individuals and across groups. Those who score high on Openness to Experience tend to be more engaged in activities involving thought, emotion, and/or aesthetic appreciation, as well as the pursuit of various types of sensory experiences. It is interesting that, as a psychological construct, it encompasses types that can be vastly different from one another: ranging from the more intellectually inclined to the artistically inclined, and even to the adventurous type who seeks physical—or sexual—experiences. These individuals are often the most fearless when it comes to exploring "new" or emerging fields of human ideas and activities. However, as previously mentioned, one cannot claim they are all alike; the spectrum ranges from the unathletic nerd who spends most of their time on intellectual pursuits to the fit adventurer constantly pushing their physical limits. Then there is the "artistic" type who, while sharing similarities with the intellectually driven individual, is distinctly different—though it is worth noting that certain art forms can resemble sports. A final point worth adding is that some individuals intensely express more than one facet of "openness to experience"; the artistically inclined, on average, may be the ones who most frequently display this multifaceted expression specific to the construct. Yet, regardless of the specific type—especially those exhibiting high levels of imagination and a drive for novelty—they tend to appear less mature when compared to the typical adult. This is because—and this applies beyond just our species—a hallmark of behavioral maturity is the ability to learn and adopt knowledge and behaviors that aid survival or adaptation. Maturity often entails embracing knowledge and behaviors deemed safe, familiar, and evolutionarily advantageous, while exercising restraint regarding actions that lack the backing of ancestral common sense or pose a risk to one's life.

The typical adult—or mature individual—tends to be less imaginative, less intellectually driven, and less open to new experiences if their life priorities have shifted toward adapting to their social environment, protecting themselves from risks or dangers, and seeking..by partners of the opposite sex to produce offspring. And all these functions demand a great deal of time and effort—especially adaptation, which is a constant, lifelong process. It is not that imagination, aesthetic appreciation, heightened intellectual expressiveness, or a strong drive for new experiences are negative traits. They all hold evolutionary, historical, or cultural value—particularly when channeled into activities that benefit society without becoming problematic for the individual. Creativity and rationality are of paramount importance to human evolution. The same applies to the behaviors that allow us to face the stars without fear—such as those of the extraordinarily courageous humans who were the first to venture to great heights/never before imagined. And those who continue to seek out this path. Once again, this text is primarily about what is most fundamental and important to us, not about what is extraordinary. Yet, between the extraordinary and the fundamental, there also lies the dysfunctional—a level where, failing to fulfill the one, one also fails to achieve the other, becoming mired in a state of incongruity involving both behavior and excess. This manifests as a dysfunction—supported or masked by institutional, cultural, and technological trappings, or even degenerating to the point where such amenities can no longer compensate... This occurs when these traits of openness to experience are expressed excessively, becoming dysfunctional (whether explicitly or implicitly) for the individuals involved. I chose these individuals—who'straits are more commonly found among children and adolescents—as my primary examples and potential evidence; after all, the young are more imaginative, open to new experiences, and inevitably more stimulated to think about a world they are just getting to know or do not yet fully grasp. For it seems that adult humans who exhibit an excess of these traits—or even just one of them—tend to display behaviors indicating greater immaturity (in the traditional adaptive and evolutionary sense), particularly in the early decades of the 21st century. This is evident in how they dress, think, interact, and react: they are more prone to wearing clothing typical of adolescents or even younger children, and using slang or speech patterns that are likewise excessively juvenile. They are also more likely to display significant emotional and intellectual immaturity—such as an inability to tolerate dissenting opinions, an inability to look past their own views and impressions to accept "inconvenient" facts or truths, and an inability to cope with frustration, coupled with a need to be supported or protected by others rather than engaging in self-reliant and autonomous behavior. ...displaying a disproportionate number of simplistic or factually distorted beliefs, ideas, or thoughts that merely confirm their feelings rather than being grounded—that is, based on reason applied in practice. Excessively biased toward their own internal worlds... More prone to naivety, stubbornness, or arrogance; reckless and/or heedless of the consequences of their actions, even when lacking malicious intent. In short, they tend to behave like spoiled, hypersensitive children or insufferable adolescents, even if they have long since passed those stages—like children or adolescents inhabiting mature bodies. This leads to my hypothesis—supported by potential indirect evidence—that our long-term behavior directly reflects the workings of our minds, or at least the specific mental components driving that behavior. If a particular behavior would be maladaptive in a natural setting—or is tolerated only because it occurs within a highly complex environment—then it may be possible to draw a parallel between the level of behavioral functionality (based on specific traits and their expression) and the evolutionarily ideal level of maturation. After all, while green hair or an unusual tattoo are not absolute indicators of dysfunction or mental immaturity—whether permanent or transient—they can certainly serve as early signs of something more generalized than mere unconventional taste, even though such things have become increasingly popular over the last decade...

In relative contrast to the trait of openness to experience, conscientiousness consists of a set of behaviors more closely linked to maturity—such as responsibility and discipline—and encompasses traits directly related to functions essential to consciousness and to functional or evolutionarily intelligent behavior: attention, perception, and memory. Individuals who score high on these traits tend to be more responsible for their own actions, disciplined, and goal-oriented. They also tend to exhibit more formal and/or traditional behavioral patterns. And this also indicates that they tend to be more mature than those who engage more deeply with their "inner world." More adaptable, functional, orderly, honest... But also conformist and obedient. Conformist, especially regarding the culture that appeals most to them—the one that reflects their values. Even so, because they are so adaptable, they tend to conform quietly, even to social changes with which they disagree. They may also—especially those who express these traits more moderately—be more inclined to adopt such changes, adapting pragmatically while still following a logical or coherent path. They are like humans.who evolved directly from the more natural environments inhabited by the earliest members of our species, and who are now adapted to more complex cultural settings. They are akin to generalist species; they adapt easily, partly due to the high demand for their skills. They tend to seek a traditional lifestyle or life cycle: upon reaching adulthood, they look for employment to support themselves, adapt functionally to their environment, and seek reproductively viable partners—or partners of the opposite sex—often with the intention, or the natural inclination, to produce offspring. This holds true even when social and economic fluctuations force them to delay or even forgo starting a family. They also tend to demonstrate a certain capacity—primarily intuitive, yet certainly cognitive—to detect risks to their lives. Ultimately, they constitute that variable majority of human individuals who sustain societies and communities. Of course, they are not perfect in every respect. Excessive conscientiousness can render an individual uncreative or overly conformist. Certain combinations with other traits—such as openness to experience—can prove either beneficial or detrimental to the highly conscientious individual. What seems evident is that these traits, by manifesting behaviors associated with maturity, may also reflect mental or neurological aspects that are similarly linked...

Regarding the other Big Five traits, some—such as neuroticism and, especially, emotional stability—show a closer relationship to levels of maturity. This is true in and of themselves, given that human adults tend to exhibit more stable emotional expression than children and adolescents—with the latter group, in particular, tending to be more neurotic or emotionally unstable...

As for the remaining traits, their association with levels of maturity appears to depend more heavily on their intensity and how they interact with other traits. Even so, the main thrust of my hypothesis is precisely to assert that personality variation itself reflects levels of mental and organic maturation—even regarding traits that lack an immediate correspondence, such as the introversion-extroversion spectrum, which seem to stem from one's very nature or essence. Furthermore, there exists an optimum of development and expression that varies according to culture, population, or human race, yet tends to rest on a universal foundation—and not only among humans...

Correlates of political-ideological affiliation

Our political-ideological beliefs also reflect our personality and intelligence traits—as well as other characteristics or perspectives, such as hormonal makeup—within social and cultural contexts. When we state that we champion a particular point of view—one that typically carries political implications—it can reveal "who we are" or "our current state of being." This revelation can be direct or hint at something deeper: whether we are being candid or cynical; whether we support a policy because it benefits us while also believing it promotes collective well-being, or whether we do so out of sheer opportunism. I even believe that our belief systems reveal, with greater precision, just how rational or irrational we are...

Thus, it becomes easy to extrapolate the relationship between political belief and psycho-cognitive characteristics regarding levels of mental and organic maturity. As I indicated earlier, among the "Big Five" traits—those most closely linked to typical behavioral maturity—"openness to experience" and "conscientiousness" are precisely the ones showing the most distinct correlations with specific ideological groups. The former is positively correlated with a strong adherence to so-called "left-wing" beliefs and values, while the latter is positively correlated with a strong adherence to so-called "right-wing" beliefs and values. The former involves greater intellectual, artistic, aesthetic, and sensory engagement; the latter entails greater self-control, responsibility, and discipline. Not only do these correlations exist, but the traits also tend to be mutually exclusive; after all, someone who is highly open to experiences and sensations is not typically the most prudent of individuals... At their most intense—and therefore most problematic—levels, we find: among the most emotionally and intellectually immature, those who are excessively "impulsive" and irresponsible; and among the excessively conscientious, those who are overly formal and highly averse to change or to engaging in new experiences. ...less creative and less interested in science, the arts, philosophy... Neither extreme is "ideally" good. However, when compared to the typically mature behavior of a human adult, openness to experience—even at moderate levels of expression—appears to signal a higher degree of immaturity; it is as if the psychological and cognitive characteristics of childhood or adolescence were extending indefinitely into adulthood.

One can observe this immaturity in their political beliefs. "Left-wing" views—those favoring a relaxation of social controls, whether regarding crime or immigration—often reflect a high level of naivety among those who genuinely believe in and advocate for such policies. They believe that easing criminal penalties and promoting socio-educational measures aimed at "rehabilitating" offenders will actually combat crime—a perspective akin to a child's reasoning. It involves promoting policies that are overly sentimental in the face of human cruelty, as if the only antidote were love and understanding—an approach that is often misguided, given that the issue is not merely a matter of providing what is lacking, but involves behavioral predispositions that interact in complex ways with environmental circumstances. As for generous immigration policies, this once again reveals a failure to recognize the—often obvious—dangers involved in throwing a country's doors wide open while disregarding consequences that have proven overwhelmingly negative in practice, such as the exponential rise in cultural conflicts and crime. If children and adolescents tend to be immature or underdeveloped in their ability to detect risks and dangers—whereas a typical adult is expected to possess this awareness—it appears that many adults who identify with the political Left demonstrate the same incompetence in risk assessment as those still in the developmental stage. Their manner of dress and speech, as well as their thought processes and beliefs, reflect minds that have failed to reach basic maturity (whether due to genetic programming or environmental factors). Any greater intellectual engagement on their part does not translate into quality, factual accuracy, or genuine knowledge acquisition; instead, it manifests as excessive abstract thinking and ensuing confusion—even an inversion of objective facts. Even their artistic engagement often appears childish or immature rather than developed—such as appreciating works of questionable quality simply because their social peers do so, or because such works have been deemed valuable by ideological authorities....demonstrating excessive reliance on the opinions of their ideological peer groups—not unlike an adolescent anxious to belong who will do anything to achieve that goal. A mode of existence overly focused on the inner world—on emotions, thoughts, and sensations—proves naturally more dysfunctional for navigating a traditional life cycle; conversely, a mode of existence oriented toward the outer world—characterized by a strong predominance of conscientiousness—proves more naturally adaptable.

Interestingly, both types are susceptible to social conformity, though stemming from distinct values ​​and groups: the former—highly open to novelty and sensation—is drawn to "hives" of conformity that mirror their own unconventional and excessively youthful styles of thinking and living. The latter—the excessively conscientious—is drawn to quieter, more obedient, and conventional hives of conformity. What distinguishes them regarding maturity is the extent to which their behavior aligns with the traits typical of a mature human adult and a more natural life cycle.

Conservative political beliefs center on adhering to a logical order of laws and pragmatic, stable behaviors that serve the functionality of the social system itself—even if such systems are far from problem-free. Traditionally, a conservative society within a civilizational context has functioned as a parasitic organization, wherein upper-tier classes exploit those lower down—a dynamic not unlike the social structures observed in other species, characterized by hierarchies or specific roles assigned to different groups. For regardless of their political nature—whether libertarian or collectivist, misguided or sound—their introductory narratives tend to attract conventional types who are averse to change or to venturing too deeply into new fields that stray from values ​​aligned with the natural cycle of development, social adaptation, and reproduction. It must be reiterated that the maturity discussed here is not the extraordinary kind—such as exceptional emotional or intellectual maturity—but rather the most fundamental form: the kind that adheres to the universal principles enabling individual survival and the perpetuation of the species.

Neoteny

Our species is intrinsically neotenous; even after reaching maturity, we retain physical and mental traits that are considered infantile or immature. One such trait is the capacity for learning—going beyond mere replication of what has been taught—which extends well past childhood, whereas in other species, this ability typically ceases or diminishes significantly upon reaching maturity. This neotenous nature has proven evolutionarily advantageous for our collective survival, primarily by fostering greater behavioral—and thus adaptive—plasticity. However, there is variation in the degree of neoteny among us; some adult individuals appear more juvenile than others, a state that carries both positive and negative aspects—as previously illustrated in the discussion on personality traits. For those who are highly neotenous would present an increased risk of behavioral dysfunction—observed through greater engagement in risky behaviors, such as impulsivity and an inability to detect life-threatening dangers. This manifests either directly and explicitly through concrete actions, or more implicitly through political beliefs that promote increased risk or insecurity rather than their inhibition. After all, if children and adolescents generally possess a broader potential for learning, it is precisely because they have not yet reached mental maturity—much like a glass that is half-full and waiting to be filled.

Indeed, an excess of neoteny—of infantile or "immature" traits in human adults—would be evident not only in behavior but also, to varying degrees, in the body itself. However, this is a matter of correlation rather than absolute causality, as not everyone who displays predominantly immature behavior also possesses an excessively youthful physical appearance. As previously noted and here reaffirmed, this excess would also carry psychological, psychiatric, cognitive, and evolutionary implications. It reflects a state—whether permanent or transient—of mental and organic underdevelopment relative to the most evolutionarily adaptive developmental spectrum, thereby impairing or disabling the most basic functions required for survival and the completion of a natural life cycle......of an individual: from the capacity to reproduce to that of detecting risks to their own life... Furthermore, the cultural environment can heighten excessive neotenous predispositions and even manifest them more markedly—or dysfunctionally—in individuals who, *a priori*, do not exhibit them. For example, the inhibition of reproductive capacity due to social and economic reasons that also affect highly conscientious individuals...

Sexuality

My hypothesis—that personality, along with the diversity and intensity of its traits, reflects varying levels of mental and organic maturation (whether transitory or permanent)—would also apply to sexuality and its diversity. Indeed, the two are closely linked in terms of expression; much of what is attributed to personality is also a reflection of sexuality. For instance, consider the perception that certain men are more "masculine" than others: one might initially link this expression to circulating testosterone levels—an indisputable sexual characteristic—and subsequently define it as a psychological or behavioral trait...

On the natural cycle and the peak level of sexual dimorphism as an ideal parameter for sexual development

Only an LGBT activist would deny the fundamental role of heterosexuality in fostering reproductive capacity—a characteristic essential to our sexually reproducing species and our collective survival. While the spectrum may certainly extend to bisexuality, one cannot deny that attraction to the opposite sex greatly facilitates sexual relations and procreation between two human adults. Setting aside such pseudoscientific and anti-intellectual denialism—which, in this instance, targets sexuality—I hypothesize that the stages of sexual development do not conclude with the maturation of reproductive organs at puberty; rather, they extend until the establishment—at least in its primary form—of sexual orientation and identity. And that its developmental optimum would be heterosexuality itself—the ultimate hallmark of sexual dimorphism, fundamental to the organization of reproductive and adaptive roles for a sexual species within the mammalian group, such as the human species. Therefore, heterosexuality would represent an expression of complete sexual maturation: that of a human adult fully capable of performing behaviors directly useful and necessary to complete their life cycle—specifically, in this context, reproductive capacity (second in importance only to survival itself).

Conversely, what we commonly term "sexual diversity"—encompassing bisexuality, homosexuality, and transsexuality—would constitute variations in sexual maturation, understood more as forms of incompleteness. These appear as transient or permanent manifestations of underdevelopment in sexual stages, where the developmental or maturational optimum—which would result in heterosexuality (in terms of both orientation and identification) as the ultimate reflection of sexual dimorphism—is not attained. This holds true whether the outcome stems from genetic programming or intrauterine stress (though the latter possibility remains more speculative—at least in my view—as it tends to rely on human studies rife with correlations that may represent "confounding factors" rather than causal confirmation, given that a conclusive, truly empirical demonstration does not yet seem possible). Just as was demonstrated regarding personality—where there exists a sort of ideal developmental "script" that renders a human adult fully capable of exhibiting behaviors or competencies considered fundamental to their natural life cycle during maturity (such as self-defense, behavioral self-management, environmental adaptation, and reproductive capacity—including the inclination for it)...

Thus, beyond sexual orientation or identity as potential expressions of immaturity or underdevelopment, adult individuals belonging to sexual minorities would be (far) more prone to exhibiting immature behaviors indicative of a higher, more generalized level of mental and organic immaturity. It is readily apparent that many of these individuals tend to behave like adolescents or children inhabiting seemingly mature bodies—particularly within the highly neotenized cultural environment of the early 21st century, which encourages the extension of immature phases (childhood and adolescence) well beyond their natural chronological limits. Often oblivious to the commitments a typical adult is expected to shoulder, many display high levels of dysfunction, failing to pursue a sober and functional lifestyle—perhaps because they lack the capacity to do so. Culturally speaking, it is as if many of them—even those nearing forty, fifty, or older—have remained frozen in time at age fifteen or eighteen, frequently behaving irresponsibly or impulsively, as though still navigating the hormonal and emotional volatility typical of adolescence. Because they are disproportionately represented among those.....engage in risky behaviors: from rampant sexual promiscuity to the indiscriminate use of chemical substances, ranging from alcohol to psychotropic drugs... And even when they attempt to pursue more sober behaviors, such as monogamy, immaturity often prevails, preventing many from sustaining long-term relationships. This is hardly surprising, given that the correlation between belonging to a sexual minority and exhibiting mental disorders is high enough to suggest a shared etiology; my hunch is that both may reflect disruptions to the ideal "script" of mental and organic development—whether occurring at conception or during the intrauterine period. After all, individuals with mental disorders who are not LGBT also tend to display more immature behaviors than the typical adult, reflecting the underdevelopment of certain fundamental aspects of the mind...

Cognitively speaking, there are implications as well; since cognition is our primary and necessary channel for factual perception, those belonging to sexual minorities tend to—partially or predominantly—invert their perception of the world. This occurs because our primary impulse is to project our own subjectivities: an individual attracted to the same sex tends to believe that their way of experiencing sexuality is the correct one—or identical to the opposite experience—which makes them more inclined to seek out supposedly scientific or rational explanations to justify themselves and validate their feelings. This inversion extends to other aspects, such as the social realm (where the "most correct" course—in a logical-rational or factual sense—becomes the "most wrong"), and may reflect the original inversion of sexuality itself, given the close relationship sexuality bears to personality (and personality to intelligence), as previously noted. This also explains why many LGBT individuals identify with the political Left; the Left offers emotional and political support to groups that do not fit into the conservative order—an order more closely aligned with the dominant life cycle found among sexually reproducing species. Another explanation lies in the Left’s appeal to the emotional rather than the logical-rational; it tends to attract specific groups for two reasons: they are prioritized in the Left's power agendas, and the emotionally charged nature of its rhetoric and narratives holds particular appeal for groups such as women, adolescents (or the very young), and LGBT individuals. One might also include the Left's tendency to invert concepts—historically defined by conservative traditionalists—that have been deemed (with varying degrees of accuracy) natural or logical.

Anomalous sexuality can be viewed as a variation involving the underdevelopment of sexual dimorphism—a state in which the maximal, evolutionarily functional differentiation between the sexes fails to occur at the individual level. It resembles a form of partial pseudo-hermaphroditism that is predominantly mental in nature but also manifests physically in varying ways, such as the observed correlation between ambiguous physical traits and non-heterosexuality. Or rather, a kind of more pronounced androgyny—a characteristic that tends to be relatively more common in children and adolescents and that tends to be detrimental to one of the functions most essential for the perpetuation of a species like ours...

Potential direct evidence

There appears to be no other evidence with greater potential to corroborate my hypothesis than premature birth and its associated factors. The logic here is that birth occurring before the typical gestational time can, in itself, precipitate events or developmental stages and disrupt normal development, leading to long-term repercussions. However, it is also possible that the organism is inherently programmed for underdevelopment, with anomalous variation in sexual dimorphism being one of the outcomes. After all, prematurity—like low birth weight in full-term infants—shows strong correlations with a range of health conditions, from autoimmune, metabolic, and psychiatric disorders¹ to other conditions, such as sexual diversity². It is already known that there is a hereditary component to the likelihood of a woman giving birth prematurely³, which may indicate that prematurity involves a genetic or biological element rather than always being primarily the result of high stress during the intrauterine period... (There are also explanations based on intrauterine environmental conditions and interactions with the external environment; these posit that those born "prematurely of schedule" miss out on the full range of "immune exchange" processes with the mother's body, thereby developing health issues. Yet, as mentioned above, it is possible that this underdevelopment is actually programmed to occur,...regardless of internal or external disturbances). In any case—whether stemming from conception itself or environmental conditions during pregnancy—it is a fact that many health conditions correlate with premature birth in a way that suggests a common etiology. Interestingly, mothers more prone to reporting high stress during or after the gestational period⁴ (such as postpartum depression) are also at high risk of giving birth before the standard nine-month mark... But what if these mothers are already at higher risk of psychiatric issues than those less likely to have premature or low-birth-weight offspring? After all, such psychiatric issues are often the result of more abnormal or irregular biological profiles...

Thus, the logical conclusion of my hypothesis—drawing on the evidence regarding prematurity—is that organisms exhibiting relative or generalized underdevelopment (falling short of the functional and adaptive ideal) display fundamental levels of mental and/or organic immaturity, manifesting as functional deficits... Much like leaving a task unfinished, which leads to subsequent problems... This ranges from underdevelopment originating in childhood—such as neurological disorders that typically manifest during that phase, like ADHD and autism—to "programmed permanent disturbances" that begin to appear at a later stage of organic and mental maturation, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (in the realm of psychiatric and neurological disorders—or are they simply forms of immaturity?), as well as other categories of health issues or conditions, ranging from diabetes to homosexuality...

Regarding more advanced mental maturation or the philosophical level of consciousness

What lies beyond the basic level of mental maturation is also significant; and while one might imagine numerous ways to transcend that baseline and reach an exceptional category, I believe there is one extremely important criterion—fundamental precisely because of its primal nature—that greatly simplifies this speculative and deductive exercise: the capacity for perception—in its purest sense, the perception of reality—which is directly linked to consciousness and, consequently, to intelligence. This implies a hierarchy of levels, with our species occupying the pinnacle of expression—wholly distinct from all others—as the only living species to have attained vastly broader levels of understanding regarding the world it inhabits. We have managed to extend this knowledge beyond the confines of immediate adaptive necessity, becoming capable of conceiving a fact in and of itself, rather than merely treating it organically as a pragmatic means to a utilitarian or adaptive end—as almost every non-human species apparently does, conflating behavior with thought, or acting instinctively (for instinct is precisely that: an inseparability of thought and action, even when intention does not manifest as physical movement). ...that powerful, imperative objectivism that so characterizes other species and impresses us—we frail humans, so dependent on our technologies, which were built upon the loss of much of our instinctual nature, with our expanded capacity for learning serving as the currency of exchange and compensation... Perceptual capacity—even more than intelligence—precedes and substantially influences the very capacity for adaptation... It would be interesting, then, to reflect on this exceptional mental functioning and its correlates...

Consider those who reach the highest levels of rational intelligence: they exhibit high levels of intellectual stimulation—a typically neotenous trait, as concluded in the discussions regarding correlates with immaturity and human neoteny—yet simultaneously display psychocognitive traits expressing high levels of intellectual and emotional maturity, interestingly linked to conscientiousness traits such as discipline and responsibility... An example of exceptionality that defies the rule established here...

¹

https://www.gfcni.org/news/article/preterm-birth-mental-health

https://www.gfcni.org/news/article/preterm-birth-adult-mental-health

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9521164/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5640887/

https://sparkforautism.org/discover_article/autism-and-prematurity/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12192066/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2780229#google_vignette

² https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39361956/

³ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7187167/

⁴

https://policycentermmh.org/preterm-birth-and-maternal-mental-health/

Points of disagreement or weaknesses in my hypothesis

1. Possible lack of evidence for a direct link between preterm birth, political-ideological affiliation, and personality traits

I conducted a quick search and found no study indicating a direct relationship between political-ideological affiliation—or the cited personality traits—and a higher propensity for preterm birth. There was only one study⁵ finding that individuals born very prematurely tended to exhibit personality traits resembling the psychological profile typical of the autism spectrum... However, there is direct evidence linking preterm birth to health correlates—such as psychiatric disorders—that are, in turn, variably associated with political-ideological affiliation and personality. So, if there is no direct link—or at least none yet discovered—between identifying as "left-wing" on the political-ideological spectrum (which I have characterized as a more immature behavioral expression, primarily within a political context) and having been born prematurely... (since self-identified leftists are more prone to reporting psychiatric disorders and other health conditions—much like sexual minorities, who are also more likely to have been born "ahead of schedule")... then the relationship would be indirect... The same applies to personality traits, and especially to personality disorders...

⁵ https://time.com/3973664/premature-babies-personality/

However, it is possible that premature birth is not always a necessary condition to explain underdeveloped levels of optimal maturation—in both organic and mental terms. One might be born at the "normal time," yet possess a "genetic programming" that results in an immature profile—one that fails to meet the basic behavioral functionality criteria that define or characterize a typical human adult...

2. Positive correlation.. of openness to experience with IQ, and a negative correlation with conscientiousness.

It is often assumed that the more intelligent an individual is, the more mentally mature they are. While this might well be true, the logic appears simplistic; it makes sense at first glance but falls apart under more robust analytical scrutiny—at least in many cases. Furthermore, the levels of maturity required for adaptive functioning in human adulthood do not necessarily demand high cognitive capacity. In fact, given the inherent complexity of our species' intelligence, an "excess" of it can produce an effect that is seemingly paradoxical or contrary to expectations: the greater the intellectual capacity, the higher the risk that it may actually hinder the promotion of behaviors that are objectively functional for the individual. Another explanation is that relying solely on IQ tests as a metric for intelligence overlooks the fact that human intelligence extends far beyond the capabilities—superficially assessed, it must be said—measured by these tests. Scoring high or very high on such tests is not definitive proof of intelligence in practice—which is what matters most (perception of reality?)—nor does it account for the full spectrum of its aspects or types. The issue goes further, as "openness to experience"—the personality trait most strongly correlated with IQ—is a psychological construct comprising characteristics that can vary widely in intensity across different individuals and human groups. As previously mentioned—and worth reiterating here—someone who is highly intellectually engaged is not exactly the same as someone who is more artistically or aesthetically engaged, and certainly differs from those who seek new sensations or experiences of a more kinesthetic nature. Even though some individuals may score high on all three forms of "excitability," most people open to experience likely engage more deeply with one of these than with all three equally. Generally speaking, the profile of individuals highly open to new experiences is the most youthful of all personality profiles, precisely because they exhibit traits typical of human immaturity—specifically those of childhood and adolescence. This applies to everyone from artists and creative types in other fields to those constantly seeking new challenges or novel ways of experiencing the world. Even among the intellectually engaged, many seem to fall into the "nerd" category, treating knowledge as a pastime for abstract thought rather than as a fundamental tool for adaptation or the objective expansion of their understanding; indeed, those identified as "intellectuals" often use their cognitive abilities—particularly verbal skills—to rationalize personal beliefs rather than to engage in genuine, objective rationality. Furthermore, "nerds" frequently display childlike behaviors or cultural preferences reflecting an "excessive" attachment to things typically associated with childhood or adolescence, such as video games and comic books. Thus, openness to experience may be a set of characteristics defined more by motivation, intensity, or quantity than by quality. For instance, the high level of intellectual engagement seen in many individuals might not reflect the *quality* of that engagement so much as a comparative, quantitative difference. This is not to say that true intellectuals do not exist—individuals who inevitably score high on the intellect aspect of this openness-to-experience trait. However, much of this correlation may well be, by nature, more a matter of directed motivation than of vocation or talent. And, of course, the truly exceptional individuals in these fields—intellectual, artistic, and kinesthetic—are also among those most open to new experiences or sensations specific to their areas of engagement or practice. In any case, verbal IQ is the type of IQ most strongly linked to this trait, even if we limit our assessment parameters solely to traditional cognitive tests. This may point to what was mentioned earlier: that openness to experience correlates with intelligence—though in a specific rather than a generalized way—and that it is even possible, or probable, that regarding certain facets of human intelligence, the correlations are weak or negative. This appears to be the case with the behavioral characteristics of the "conscientiousness" trait—which also offers obvious adaptive functions and benefits, such as discipline and personal organization...

Thus, as concluding points that might explain this disagreement—which threatens the replicative viability of my hypothesis—we can note the following: IQ does not capture the entirety of our intelligence; its correlation with openness to experience is moderate rather than high, and a significant portion of that correlation is likely attributable to the "intellect" sub-trait; this correlation appears strongest with verbal-linguistic IQ—and even though this is the most important component of such tests, regarding human language itself, it assesses aesthetic aspects (such as vocabulary size) rather than objectively functional ones (such as language serving as the primary means to organize our perception and understand the world we inhabit, which is the most crucial functional aspect); furthermore, many individuals who score high on openness to experience seem unable to satisfactorily meet these fundamental objectives of intelligence—likely due to a reasoning style that is excessively abstract (easily losing touch with tangible reality) or characterized by divergent thinking (which can have a similar effect); conscientiousness, despite showing a negative correlation with IQ, undeniably stands out as a trait cluster directly associated with functional and/or adaptive behaviors typical of mental maturity; it is important to remember that correlation does not imply causation, that there are distinct subtypes of "high ability" based on varying combinations of personality and cognitive traits, and that artistically and intellectually competent individuals often exhibit high levels of certain conscientiousness traits—such as discipline—though these are likely channeled into their specific professional or self-motivated pursuits; finally, since personality traits manifest in conjunction with others, simply being more open to experience or artistically and intellectually engaged is insufficient to determine the quality of that engagement, precisely because it depends on other traits, such as those associated with conscientiousness. ...and high IQ is not necessarily the central benchmark for mature behavior in human adults... As previously speculated, it may even be the case that high cognitive complexity comes with an increased risk of dysfunctions—whether cognitive or behavioral—especially when combined with certain personality traits or disorders (including dysfunctions masked by socioeconomic status and cultural biases; for instance, the positive correlation between high IQ—particularly verbal IQ—and deep adherence to progressive beliefs, and what that actually implies, yet which, within "intellectual circles"—currently composed mostly of self-proclaimed progressives—is treated as unproblematic or even logical, as if a typical left-leaning belief system were the pinnacle of wisdom...

In any case, the strongest correlation—bordering on causal—proposed in my hypothesis, based on this potential indirect evidence regarding the personality trait of "openness to experience," is that its most intense or unbalanced levels make an adult more prone to behaviors reflecting mental immaturity, whether permanent or transient...

An important point to consider is whether a more complex—and thus organically more intelligent—brain, which takes longer to mature, might also manifest as a prolonged period of mental and behavioral immaturity; for example, through deep or dogmatic adherence to certain unrealistic idealisms—a pattern commonly observed among "intellectuals," but especially among many young people demonstrating high technical cognitive abilities, such as those who venture into the field of "education" to become "activist-teachers," particularly in the social sciences and humanities... Or is this merely an extended phase of immaturity that resolves with age—as often seems to happen—or can it also be explained by the very diversity of cognitive types, wherein some are characterized by a combination... ...strengths in more technical aspects and weaknesses in more qualitative aspects—such as rational capacity, which are more directly related to both basic and advanced levels of mental maturity...

This interesting study⁵ shows that the negative correlation between IQ and conscientiousness relates more to self-identification with this set of personality traits, whereas the objective observation of these traits in individuals—absent self-identification—reveals a positive, albeit weak, correlation... In any study concerning personality and correlations, it is always important to examine self-identification with behavioral traits and the extent to which it aligns with reality—that is, the correspondence between how an individual identifies themselves and the accuracy of that self-assessment..attempt...

⁵ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608015001740

Neurological correlates

One avenue for finding more direct evidence to support my hypothesis is by looking for neurological correlates. Indeed, such potential evidence already exists—starting with political-ideological affiliation but extending from there to the other proposed correlations. Let us briefly examine the most significant correlate identified by scientific research regarding differences in neurological functioning between individuals who identify with the right and those who identify with the left on the political-ideological spectrum...

The first article below⁶ is just one of many reporting on one of the most striking differences found between the brains of people with differing political affiliations: those further to the right tend to have a larger amygdala—the very region of the brain responsible for processing emotions such as fear and danger. Meanwhile, those further to the left tend to show a more active anterior cingulate cortex, an "area of ​​the brain associated with decision-making, empathy, and conflict control"...

Let’s take a look:

Consider the importance of a brain structure directly linked to one of the most fundamental survival capabilities: the detection of risks and dangers—or, indeed, survival for any species...

The second correlate, however, appears more "complex" or diffuse regarding the associated functions or capabilities—not to mention the terminology involved, such as "empathy," a word used ad nauseam in the media and often confused with compassion or sympathy...

While the neurological correlation between a specific part of the brain responsible for danger detection and conservative behavior is clearly discernible—even if not perfect—the correlation between a brain region responsible for empathy and conflict control and progressive behavior appears less immediately evident. I am not even highlighting the "decision-making" function as a key factor in this discussion, given how fundamental it is to behavior... However, regarding the other correlations, I believe there are valid reservations to be raised. First, consider empathy as the capacity to put oneself in another's shoes—a capacity that appears deeply flawed and selective among many who identify with the political-ideological Left... It is flawed because true empathy entails placing oneself in the other's position in a way that fosters genuine understanding; otherwise, one is not truly occupying their "place"—situationally, emotionally, or motivationally. It becomes more akin to sympathy—a feeling of affection—which does not necessarily require full empathy; in fact, it can even manifest as the opposite: projecting one's own impressions onto the other... Indeed, an act of true empathy might even provoke revulsion, hatred, or a desire to withdraw—contrary to the common belief about "being empathetic." And they are highly selective—so much so that they tend to treat their ideological adversaries with deep contempt, yet also with ignorance, often struggling to understand them precisely because they lack genuine empathy. Something similar occurs with the groups for whom—due to ideological conditioning—they feel "great affection." Sympathy? Yes. Empathy? Not so much.

Secondly, there is the issue of "conflict control." Even if there is an emotional motivation to manage conflict, the actual practice often runs completely counter to what they—whether ostensibly or genuinely—seek to achieve. Advocating for open borders and mass immigration? For significantly reducing punishment and incarceration for those who commit crimes, especially serious ones? And for the—usually unjust—demonization of some groups alongside the sanctification of others? Where, or in which galaxy, does that constitute conflict control?

Perhaps they are "confusing" conflict control with an authoritarian impulse—though one distinct from the type typically driven by conservative political forces. This version equates—falsely—unrestrained license or the subversion of traditionalism with absolute freedom, all while masquerading as "democratic" or "humanist."

Another potential issue lies in the word "control" within the phrase "conflict control"; it might be more accurate to speak of an "aversion to conflict." In practice, even an intense aversion to conflict can *still* generate conflict. When a solvable problem is left unaddressed, it can snowball over time.

There is also the matter of linking studies—which seek neurological correlates in opinion polls and specific cases of brain lesions—to their validation in everyday reality. Certain brain regions may be more hierarchically dependent than others, or they may function more in tandem with other regions (as is the case with the anterior cingulate cortex)

In any case, what seems clearest here is the relationship between conservative beliefs—or right-wing political-ideological affiliation—and the reactive characteristics (or typical functions) of the amygdala. This stands in contrast to the correlates involving the anterior cingulate cortex and the political left; in that instance, the relationship appears weaker or more complex than simply stating that "leftists, on average, showed greater activity in the anterior cingulate cortex and are therefore better at conflict mediation and empathetic expression"...

It is also important to understand how these neurological correlates with specific personality traits or attitudes are defined. Self-reporting may well be the most common method—not unlike establishing a personality typology. Yet, self-identification with a particular behavioral tendency might not perfectly align with actual day-to-day practice, whether at the individual or collective level...

⁶ https://www.publico.pt/2024/09/20/ciencia/noticia/amigdala-cerebro-conservadores-maior-progressistas-2104808

⁷ https://www.scielo.br/j/rprs/a/7x9NJbSS9Gz4KfyLgR4VjGK/?lang=pt

"It acts as the brain's alarm, processing emotions such as fear and danger. Responsible for the 'fast track' of the startle response, it also consolidates emotional memories and regulates social behaviors."

This is an excerpt from the second article cited above⁷; it details the functions of the amygdala—a structure that various studies have found to be larger or more active in individuals who tend to identify with the right side of the political-ideological spectrum (the first article also found that non-identitarian or more socially conservative leftists had, on average, larger amygdalae than those more inclined toward cultural Marxism or "wokeism"). It is interesting to note the mention of its role in consolidating emotional memories, as this appears linked to "learning from experience"...

The conclusion—which potentially corroborates my hypothesis—is that while a typical adult human needs to detect life-threatening dangers or risks in order to protect themselves, those identifying more with the left of the political-ideological spectrum appear less mature or underdeveloped in this very basic and crucial capacity, whereas those identifying more with the right would be better off... Consequently, correlations involving atypical sexuality and certain personality traits would likely follow this same corroborative pattern, given that sexual minorities—as well as individuals more open to experiences, sensations, and novelty—are disproportionately more likely to identify with the left. ...that all the listed characteristics would reflect broader patterns of mental and organic immaturity...

Discussion and conclusion

The two sets of personality traits—openness to experience and conscientiousness—as shown in this text, present features that are respectively and typically associated with behavioral immaturity and maturity. They are self-explanatory in their own right. However, and as also previously noted—especially regarding openness to experience—this does not imply an absolute correspondence between maturation levels and personality traits. This specific construct encompasses a more diverse range of characteristics than conscientiousness, including subtypes that may be more complex or even distinct from others sharing the same set, despite exhibiting basic similarities in expression, such as a high level of engagement in activities that are, *a priori*, recreational. I might even call it a "hedonistic personality set" or an "otaku personality set"—a Japanese term referring to individuals who display an intense fixation on specific interests that are, again, recreational rather than "utilitarian" in nature... I even wonder if it might be better to split this set of traits or create more specific (sub)sets...

Openness to experience and conscientiousness appear to contrast not only in terms of orientation—directed toward the inner world and the outer world, respectively, as shown above—but also regarding the nature of motivation: more intrinsic in the first set and more extrinsic in the second. And all of this is reflected in differences in basic mental maturity (differences that often have repercussions beyond the mental realm—or "organic" ones—much like the correlations where physical health robustness is mirrored in mental traits such as discipline and self-control... and the relative opposite seen in cases of excessive expression of one or more traits associated with openness to experience. Examples abound in the media and the real world: the fable of the ant and the grasshopper; the contrast between the adventurer or *bon vivant* and the responsible worker)...

As for the hypothesis that variations in sexual orientation and identification also reflect levels of mental and organic maturation, the argument—based on what was stated in your presentation—rests on the behaviors, functions, and/or competencies typical of an adult within a primate and mammalian species like humans. In this view, a deviation from the most functional pattern of sexuality—heterosexuality—would constitute a disorder relative to the evolutionarily "normal" or ideal state. The nature or essence of this disorder would be precisely an organically determined and relatively variable failure to reach the final stage of sexual development (including in terms of sexual dimorphism): the full development of sexuality for primarily utilitarian purposes—which, in this context, equates to "reproductive purposes"... This is analogous to any mental or physical disorder that prevents or hinders the performance of a generally basic function.

Regarding environmental influence, the same rule applies to a variable trait......reactive to the same—a concept of "variation of variation" can be applied here regarding individuals who exhibit a consistency leaning either toward basic mental and organic maturity or toward immaturity (such as those more easily influenced or shaped by the conditions of the environments they navigate)... This would explain the cultural expansion of the immature phenotype in the present day (the early decades of the 21st century) and the intensified expression of this trait in those seemingly born with a predisposition toward mental or behavioral immaturity...

Regarding correlations with premature birth, the main limitation is the absence of any significant or direct link to the personality traits (or ideological affiliations) identified as indicators of mental and organic immaturity. Nevertheless, indirect correlations with these traits do exist. The most plausible conclusion concerning these correlations is that gestational prematurity is not a necessary condition for the manifestation of greater mental and organic immaturity; rather, it suffices for traits or functions typically associated with basic maturation to exhibit dysfunction—whether due to genetic programming or environmental disruption of organic development. However, it is also expected that such maturational variation may occur in specific ways in certain cases, or in complex patterns—particularly among exceptional individuals, where profound irregularities might indicate high levels of maturity in some sets of functions and competencies alongside low levels in others. The only relatively positive correlation found between the identified traits and prematurity is that of sexual diversity or "non-heterosexual dominance"...

Finally, regarding neurological correlates, the strongest are those linked to political-ideological affiliation—specifically, as shown, by establishing an asymmetrical relationship with a capacity or competence crucial to adult life in any species: the detection of risks or dangers. This capacity appears underdeveloped in many who identify as left-wing, while appearing more developed—or simply at a normal level—in many who identify as right-wing on the political-ideological spectrum. This conclusion is based not only on neurological correlates but also on behaviors reflected in the beliefs, ideas, and thoughts of both groups; those further to the left tend to support public policies that compromise their own safety and that of others—a tendency driven not merely by pure ideological indoctrination, but likely also by certain mental characteristics that logically relate to these behaviors, and which I have defined as expressions—whether permanent or transient—of immaturity...