New daring

 "Ridiculous (expensive) branded clothes and accessories"

For capitalism to work, there always needs to be a sucker;

A misfit is not the same as a sick person;

The cowardly "right", but also any kind of very soft opposition, sugarcoats the pill so much to criticize the "left", that it ends up swallowing the pill

Since the conservative "right" lost its cultural hegemony to the identitarian-bourgeois "left" in the Western world, "right-wing wimps" have become increasingly common, types that come to partially endorse the predominant beliefs and thoughts (which turn into behaviors) typical of the other side, as a reflection of ideological submission to the current holders of power, via culture//morality, in turn induced by a more deep-rooted impetus, of this group, to adapt to the environment. Some examples: "defending a country (Israel) and a people (Jews) in a completely uncritical manner, that is, the same "people" (without generalizing) that have led the structural destitution of conservatism in the core of Western culture...; endorsing so-called "progressive" beliefs, such as denying the existence of human races and, along with that, endorsing "anti-racist fallacies" ("whites cannot suffer racism"; "blacks are always the victims"; "being in favor of preserving human races and ethnicities is racism"...)

The cowardice of the "left": talking about "white racism", "white supremacy" or "Nazism", today (2025), disregarding the real "Nazism" perpetrated against the Palestinian people. Because doing so is the same as "kicking a dead dog"...

It seems that the "left" is not "holding the Palestinian hand" enough...

The most literal aspect of emotional maturity is the ability to recognize one's own limits and mistakes, and to seek to improve or, at least, not worsen in what is lacking

When a massacre occurs against an innocent people (like the Palestinians) and the "world" remains silent (or is silenced by those who took it over), it is inevitable to reach the conclusion that nothing or very little has changed morally in human society since the first civilizations...

Political corruption is, first and foremost, political, and not economic or financial. Therefore, it is, first and foremost, ideological and moral. Its clearest example is the imposition of an ideological indoctrination (always based on lies) as a political method

It is common for there to be a big difference between thinking and being

About a big difference between the most rational and the most emotional:

The most rational can separate their personal life from the objective and impartial truths that they accumulate and absorb, while the most emotional tends to confuse them

As a result, a truth can become offensive and therefore falsifiable to the latter, while the former learns to control his most primitive impulse of wanting to adulterate his perception of reality so that it fits his emotional demands

Irrational people tend to literalize what is abstract. Religion itself is exactly about this literalization. Of treating as real what is not seen, not known, in fact...

Of despicable people

Spirits of pigs: superficial, selfish creatures, ignorant of everything that matters most in life, a more traditional type of pervert, of course it is the "right" that is most full

Of the most perverse...

...are those who use kindness to achieve shady goals

It is the feeling that the belief one adopts is false that also contributes to reinforcing the belief itself

If Christians were mostly kind, every country with a Christian majority would be the materialization of paradise on earth. But...

Perfection, in in its pure state, does not exist. Harmony is the only possible perfection

Certain defeatists typically believe that the systematic and political application of reason is an absolute impossibility, also because they are only projecting their own prevailing irrationalities, that is, justifying themselves in advance

But it may also be because they have adopted a mistaken, excessively idealistic concept of reason

In this case, the realism of knowing that the full application of reason is a probable practical impossibility is no better than the idealism of believing, even with all the evidence corroborating the most realistic and pessimistic scenario, because it helps to not abandon reason as a guide for life, even though it is also recommended to be realistic

Belief is what one believes in and which may or may not be a fact

It is not prejudice, when it is correlativism

It is not prejudice, often, it is stupidophobia

The correlation between toxic masculinity and limited intelligence is not a parallel correlate. Toxic masculinity, as a specific expression of narcissism, is also an expression of irrationality or stupidity in its most qualitative aspect

"Scientists cannot have an ideological bias"

But every serious scientist should have a philosophical bias (which leads/to a scientific bias)

The academy should select based on two criteria: technical or specific competence and philosophical or the ability to understand and adhere to the principles or values ​​of science, such as objectivity and impartiality

Idealism is more a question of distance than perfectionism

The weight of others may be an entirely personal issue, but it is also entirely a health issue

About that classic comparison between a random Nigerian individual and a Norwegian as an argument for the denial of the existence of human races: "a pure-race black Nigerian may be more genetically similar to a pure-race white Norwegian than to another Nigerian of the same racial status..."

A type of fallacy?? Of biased or biased comparison??

Like comparing, genetically, two individuals based on traits or aspects that are not relevant for a certain comparison, to convey a relativist idea of ​​insufficient difference??

The identitarian "left" is a combination of the morality of the Care Bears (in the belief that evil is fought with love) and Power Rangers (in which they take the lead in the fight against evil, in which they treat all their opponents as monsters and in which they have an obsessive belief in "representation"). 

Why does civilization cause intellectual dysgeny? 

And how can it be solved? It is not necessarily or only the relative comfort of a civilized society that reduces the selective pressure for intelligence, in its purest state, of the search for knowledge and its systematic application, but also because, in an environment that does not offer immediate dangers to life, this selection becomes more optional or is diverted to functions more secondarily related to intelligence, such as social adaptation. So, if the more complex a society becomes, the less directly necessary intelligence becomes in its purest state, as a solution to this problem, it would be necessary to create artificial means to promote the fertility of the most (genuinely) rational individuals. However, the problem of negative selection of rational intelligence in complex societies seems much deeper or more difficult to fully combat and resolve, given the enormous power of human irrationality throughout our history...

Human beings are the only animals that have evolved their intelligence to its purest state, of factual perception or the search for knowledge, considering it as an end in itself and not only or solely as a means to an end.

Rational intelligence is basically the application of emotional intelligence to intellectual matters

Naivety is a very undervalued type of stupidity

Anyone who sincerely or deeply believes in the current "identity activism" of the "left" suffers from a pathological naivety (a type of stupidity)

This seems to be the case for many white people

And then there are those who tacitly adopt this belief system for completely personal reasons, for social favoritism and also as an emotional crutch that ratifies their narcissistic tendencies

This seems to be the case for many black people

... Because, if the "leftist" doctrine preaches self-flagellation in the first group, it preaches the opposite for the second

The ease and historical and practical constancy with which a majority of "white" people are convinced or indoctrinated about fallacies and lies is literal proof that the so-called white supremacy has been limited to a minority of European Caucasians. From the belief in talking snakes to the dogma of absolute human equality...

"Self-knowledge is always wonderful"

Those who really don't know what self-knowledge means say: understanding one's own limits or knowing how limited one really is...

A relação entre baixa autoconsciência/autoconhecimento, fanatismo ideológico, narcisismo e irracionalidade/The relationship between low self-awareness/self-knowledge, ideological fanaticism, narcissism and irrationality

 Quem se conhece pouco ou muito superficialmente, por extrapolação lógica, também compreende menos a realidade ao seu redor. Então, como recurso intuitivo e muito impreciso de orientação, está mais propenso a apelar para as ideologias e, nesse processo, acabar sofrendo doutrinação ideológica ou lavagem cerebral...

Quem se conhece pouco ou muito superficialmente também é pouco introspectivo, menos propenso a pensar sobre si mesmo, inclusive em um sentido autocrítico. E isso é provável que o torne atraído ao apelo de narrativas ideológicas que também estão pessoalmente enviesadas...

Quem se conhece pouco ou insuficiente também conhece pouco sobre os próprios limites e potenciais, e isso aumenta em demasia o risco de que  confunda sua própria perspectiva com a perspectiva do mundo, isto é, suas crenças ou expectativas pessoais com fatos...

Quem se conhece ou se entende pouco também está mais propenso a super ou subestimar suas capacidades, inclusive a racional, de julgamento factual e moral, e então a adotar postulados ideológicos, mesmo se forem baseados em distorções de fatos, falácias... tratando-os como verdades incontestáveis, desde que confirmem suas crenças pessoais... 

Quem se conhece ou se entende pouco está menos propenso a prestar atenção em si mesmo, em seus próprios pensamentos e sentimentos, e então a entrar em contradição com mais frequência. Ou também pode ser demasiado egocêntrico e a prestar muita atenção em si mesmo, mas especialmente em sua auto imagem distorcida, que faz pouca diferença em termos de auto compreensão...

Aquele que se conhece ou se entende pouco está mais propenso a ser narcisista, especialmente se superestima a si próprio. Então, está mais propenso a adotar apenas as crenças ideológicas que estão de acordo com os seus sentimentos, pensamentos, personalidade, circunstâncias pessoais... enfim, que reforçam seu egocentrismo, sua interpretação pessoalmente enviesada da realidade (ou super personalização/ irracionalidade) ao invés de buscar amadurecer intelectualmente para aceitar e lidar com os fatos tal como se apresentam...

Mas um baixo autoconhecimento também pode se manifestar pela síndrome do impostor tornando um indivíduo mais vulnerável a adotar crenças ideológicas de maneira acrítica, não necessariamente ou apenas porque reforçam suas crenças pessoais, mas também como maneira de mascarar sua auto percepção real ou exagerada de incapacidade de pensamento lógico-racional. E no caso de ser uma incapacidade verdadeira, se alinha mais ao caso de narcisismo, de super autoestima, do que de sub autoestima.

Those who know little about themselves or very superficially, through logical extrapolation, also understand less the reality around them. Therefore, as an intuitive and very imprecise resource for guidance, they are more likely to appeal to ideologies and, in the process, end up suffering ideological indoctrination or brainwashing...

Those who know little about themselves or very superficially are also not very introspective, less likely to think about themselves, including in a self-critical sense. And this is likely to make them attracted to the appeal of ideological narratives that are also personally biased...

Those who know little about themselves or insufficiently also know little about their own limits and potentials, and this greatly increases the risk that they will confuse their own perspective with the perspective of the world, that is, their personal beliefs or expectations with facts...

Those who know or understand little about themselves are also more likely to over- or underestimate their capacities, including rational, factual and moral judgment, and then to adopt ideological postulates, even if they are based on distortions of facts, fallacies... treating them as indisputable truths, as long as they confirm their personal beliefs...

Those who know or understand little about themselves are less likely to pay attention to themselves, to their own thoughts and feelings, and therefore to contradict themselves more often. Or they may also be too self-centered and pay too much attention to themselves, but especially to their distorted self-image, which makes little difference in terms of self-understanding...

Those who know or understand little about themselves are more likely to be narcissists, especially if they overestimate themselves. Therefore, they are more likely to adopt only ideological beliefs that are in line with their feelings, thoughts, personality, personal circumstances... in short, that reinforce their egocentrism, their personally biased interpretation of reality (or over-personalization/irrationality) instead of seeking to mature intellectually to accept and deal with the facts as they present themselves...

However, low self-knowledge can also manifest itself through impostor syndrome, making an individual more vulnerable to adopting ideological beliefs in an uncritical manner, not necessarily or only because they reinforce their personal beliefs, but also as a way of masking their real or exaggerated self-perception of inability to think logically and rationally. And if it is a true incapacity, it is more in line with the case of narcissism, of over-self-esteem, than of under-self-esteem.

Sobre a relação entre autoconhecimento e racionalidade/About the relationship between self-knowledge and rationality

 Subestimar ou superestimar potenciais e limites é por si só irracional, um mal julgamento, uma insensatez que costuma repercutir seriamente em outras áreas, inclusive sobre a própria capacidade racional. Portanto, alguém que apresenta um autoconhecimento distorcido é provável que faça o mesmo em relação a outros conhecimentos, como a própria capacidade de pensar racionalmente. Por exemplo, uma pessoa que acredita que sabe mais matemática do que realmente sabe, ou que acredita ter um grande talento artístico que não tem, ou que acredita saber mais sobre geopolítica, história, comportamento, enfim, sobre ciências humanas, do que realmente sabe, enfim, o que está subentendido em todo mal julgamento, que é a dificuldade de discernir fatos de inverdades, consequência direta de uma dificuldade de pensar e julgar com ponderação: com objetividade e imparcialidade...

Underestimating or overestimating potentials and limits is in itself irrational, a bad judgment, a folly that usually has serious repercussions on other areas, including on one's own rational capacity. Therefore, someone who presents distorted self-knowledge is likely to do the same in relation to other knowledge, such as their own ability to think rationally. For example, a person who believes they know more mathematics than they actually do, or who believes they have great artistic talent that they don't have, or who believes they know more about geopolitics, history, behavior, in short, about human sciences, than they actually know. , finally, what is implied in every bad judgment, which is the difficulty of discerning facts from untruths, a direct consequence of a difficulty in thinking and judging thoughtfully: with objectivity and impartiality...

O verdadeiro autoconhecimento é sempre contextualizado/True self-knowledge is always contextualized

 "Conhecer a si mesmo" além de se tratar de aprender sobre as próprias características ou traços, também se consiste precisamente em "conhecer seus limites e potenciais". E isso também significa que não é possível um melhor autoconhecer sem contextualizar-se. Por exemplo, não é possível saber o quão bom se é ou está em algum campo do conhecimento humano, um tipo de autoconhecer, sem obviamente observar sua proficiência atual, potencial ou histórica nele. Portanto, não é possível um autoconhecer isolado de contextos externos, mesmo sobre os conhecimentos mais básicos, como a linguagem. O que não deixa de ser um pouco paradoxal, se para se aprofundar em si mesmo, é inevitável que o faça com base em referências e influências externas, tal como a cultura. 

True self-knowledge is always contextualized

"Knowing yourself" in addition to being about learning about your own characteristics or traits, also consists precisely of "knowing your limits and potential". And this also means that it is not possible to better self-understand without contextualizing yourself. For example, it is not possible to know how good one is in some field of human knowledge, a type of self-knowledge, without obviously observing one's current, potential or historical proficiency in it. Therefore, self-knowledge isolated from external contexts is not possible, even regarding the most basic knowledge, such as language. Which is still a bit paradoxical, if you want to go deeper into yourself, it is inevitable that you do so based on external references and influences, such as culture.

Dois sobre o autoconhecimento

1. Por que o autoconhecimento é tão importante?? 

Porque é o primeiro conhecimento, sobre conhecer a si mesmo, seus próprios limites e potenciais, e que tende a influenciar todo resto, desde as ações mais comuns até às mais importantes; se um autoconhecimento muito superficial pode afetar tudo, tal como a primeira peça de um dominó que, se mal colocada, irrompe a cadeia, gerando uma repercussão generalizada. É por isso que o autoconhecimento é fundamental para o desenvolvimento da racionalidade. 

Um exemplo típico de como que um autoconhecimento pouco desenvolvido ou deficiente pode prejudicar a capacidade racional é o fanatismo ideológico, por se consistir na adoção predominantemente acrítica de crenças ou pontos de vista de ideologias específicas, consequência primária de um julgamento equivocado sobre a própria capacidade racional, de pensamento objetivo e imparcial, já que a irracionalidade também é um tipo de super personalização da percepção, em que o indivíduo, por incapacidade de distinguir suas opiniões e expectativas de fatos ou verdades objetivas, acaba tratando-as de maneira indiferenciada. 

2. Por que o autoconhecimento deveria ser matéria de escola...

(juntamente com a psicologia)?

Porque é a maneira mais efetiva de ensinar e aprender sobre os próprios limites e potenciais. 

Porque o ideal seria que todo mundo aprendesse mais sobre si mesmo, especialmente sobre suas capacidades cognitivas, emotivas... se não para melhorar no que pode, ao menos para ter ciência, mesmo se forçada, sobre as próprias limitações, ainda mais em um mundo com tanta gente que se acha mais inteligente ou capaz do que realmente é... 

Two about self-knowledge

1. Why is self-knowledge so important?

Because it is the first knowledge, about knowing yourself, your own limits and potential, and which tends to influence everything else, from the most common actions to the most important ones; If very superficial self-knowledge can affect everything, like the first piece of a domino which, if placed incorrectly, breaks the chain, generating widespread repercussions. This is why self-knowledge is fundamental to the development of rationality.

A typical example of how poorly developed or deficient self-knowledge can harm rational capacity is ideological fanaticism, as it consists of the predominantly uncritical adoption of beliefs or points of view of specific ideologies, a primary consequence of a mistaken judgment about one's own rational capacity. , of objective and impartial thinking, since irrationality is also a type of super personalization of perception, in which the individual, due to the inability to distinguish their opinions and expectations from facts or objective truths, ends up treating them in an undifferentiated way.

2. Why self-knowledge should be a school subject...

(along with psychology)?

Because it is the most effective way to teach and learn about your own limits and potential.

Because the ideal would be for everyone to learn more about themselves, especially about their cognitive and emotional capabilities... if not to improve what they can, at least to be aware, even if forced, about their own limitations, even more so in a world with so many people who think they are more intelligent or capable than they really are...