Just a zombie, or just overly "specialized"??

 "Four legs good." "Two-legged failures"

How can one explain the stereotypically stunted reasoning pattern of many self-proclaimed leftists?

You begin a debate with a typical leftist, and they start spouting ideological slogans from their sect: "fighting for democracy," "combating fascism," "ending racism"—all brought up completely at random, even in a simple, one-on-one discussion between two ordinary people. Then, when you start asking them questions about the very concepts they are invoking—or about the topics they feel qualified to opine on—they either cannot develop their own line of reasoning regarding these overused terms, or they simply fail to engage with the actual complexity of the interconnected subjects at hand. Instead, they limit themselves to repeating what others within their "conformity bubbles" echo—things they mistake for solid arguments or established facts. Even when they happen to be right about something, if you possess a strong capacity for analytical intelligence—specifically rational intelligence—you will quickly notice how deficient they are when it comes to developing arguments in real-time. They rely on canned phrases, make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, employ moral or logical fallacies, and engage in gross oversimplifications—all while feigning intellectual depth. Furthermore, they frequently fall into self-contradiction. This apparent lack of genuinely intelligent reasoning—even when used to rationalize beliefs that are factually incorrect or poorly considered—seems widespread among this group and its various sub-factions (activists and the like: LGBTQ+ advocates, feminists, anti-racists, Marxists, etc.). Only a small minority among them are actually capable of performing-frequently truly intelligent mental gymnastics.

A more holistic right-winger, and..a more specialized leftist??

It has become common to observe—both in online debates between those on the right and the left, and in everyday life—a marked disparity in the ability to reason in real-time, with the former proving significantly more capable than the latter. For starters, the simple act of defending certain obvious facts—which are highly consequential to our lives but systematically denied by the left—makes things easier for a right-leaning debater. Consider, for instance, the argument that men and women cannot transition from one sex to the other—a position that rejects the pseudoscience underpinning radical trans activism. This pattern, frequently seen in online discourse and political debates, typically involves the leftist repeating slogans while struggling to construct a coherent line of reasoning, whereas the right-leaning individual tends to do the opposite.

But what could explain this??

Beyond the left’s pronounced tendency to distort obvious facts—which leaves its supporters less equipped to debate effectively or defend their own beliefs—another explanation is that those on the right (as well as those not aligned with the left) tend, on average or disproportionately, to possess a more "holistic" cognitive profile: a "know-a-little-bit-about-everything" approach, regardless of how superficial that knowledge might be. This could account for the correlation between a "know-it-all" attitude and a right-wing political-ideological affiliation; a certain aptitude—however minimal—for interdisciplinary thinking (at least regarding the fundamentals of the humanities) might lead some individuals to become overconfident in their own rational faculties. Conversely, the leftist, on average or disproportionately, tends to exhibit a more specialized, technocratic profile—developing their cognitive capacities in a more qualitatively restricted manner, the polar opposite of the "know-a-little-bit-about-everything" approach...it would render one more limited as a thinker and as a participant in political and social debate—precisely because such knowledge demands a greater capacity for dialogue and interdisciplinary agility...

Another explanation—complementary to, or perhaps even more significant than, the one previously presented—is that individuals who consistently identify with the right on the political-ideological spectrum are more "aligned with a more natural order." Consequently, they may find it easier to accept certain fundamental aspects of reality, such as the inherent, average differences between human groups. Conversely, for many who exhibit some form of psychopathology or other underlying deviation, leftist narratives—especially those centered on identity—prove far more attractive; they foster self-indulgence and victimhood rather than personal accountability and maturity...

And since, fundamentally, we think in accordance with who or what we are, an individual with a more pronounced deviation tends to reflect that very deviation as an integral part of themselves and....and the way one thinks or what one believes can result in an inability to transcend one’s own primary subjectivity—over-personalizing one’s own perceptions and transforming personal truths into universal ones...

Therefore, as mentioned above, understanding politics and the human sciences requires an interdisciplinary approach.

The true philosopher versus the technician

...And the cognitive essence of pseudo-intellectualism: a specialist who imagines they can be, or become, a true intellectual or philosopher?

Most teachers are, by definition, specialists—individuals who focus on teaching specific subjects. This is also true for the majority of people in our species, regardless of their professional field. However—in the real world, rather than in an ideal scenario—most teachers, especially those who graduate from "humanities" programs, do not become true experts in their fields. Firstly, because true expertise would require specializing in a "philosophical-scientific interdisciplinarity"—that is, the capacity for genuine understanding and dialogue both among these disciplines (history, psychology, philosophy, geography, etc.) and with adjacent fields (biology, economics, law, etc.). Secondly, the content taught in humanities programs has become heavily skewed toward a specific ideological stance, distorting what it ought to be: a cumulative body of authentic knowledge drawn from all the relevant disciplines, free from ideological filters that twist facts to fit a dogmatic—and often tenuously factual—worldview based on social, cultural, or philosophical (in short, "human") prisms.

* This implies a broader form of specialization, given that the humanities are highly interrelated, offering significant potential for dialogue and collaborative contribution.

In other words, a true "humanist" should be like a genuine philosopher—an "expert in generalization," as I have defined (or identified) it. Philosophy itself—as a "love of knowledge"—demands discipline in reasoning and judgment, engaging the fundamental aspects of intelligence that we employ at every moment. Hence, this "specialization in generalization"—the capacity to discern or judge—is, in fact, a broader, more generalist skill that is ever-present in our lives. This stands in relative contrast to the Sciences, which I would characterize as a "generalization of specialization" (where every scientific domain, through deep inquiry, evolves into a specific, distinct discipline). Furthermore, it is likely that the majority of humanities graduates fail to attain even a consistent technical specialization—that is, one grounded in concrete knowledge and practical utility—with the exception of those who go on to specialize in specific sub-disciplines..vaguely related within that "humanistic core"—such as those found in physical geography. In any case, true specialization in these fields would—to reiterate what was mentioned above—inevitably entail a related form of interdisciplinarity.

In reality, however, rather than genuine humanists, what we have increasingly seen—across different generations—is the emergence of "technicists" in pseudoscience. Many of these individuals behave explicitly as political actvists; not only do they show contempt for genuine interdisciplinarity—which, as argued here, is essential for specialization in the humanities—but the very specializations offered within these academic departments often fail to meet their true, ideal standard. The level of ideological plurality is extremely low, leading to a profound intellectual, factual, and even moral distortion of legitimate knowledge within the humanities.

Consequently, we are left with a faculty body that is largely "pseudo-technicist," yet its members remain convinced that they are intellectuals, true philosophers, or humanists.

But why?

What causes people with above-average intelligence to be so profoundly mistaken about themselves?

An obvious explanation for why someone might believe they are something they are not—or something they are incapable of becoming—is a chronic lack of self-awareness. This leads the individual to construct a caricatured self-image; for instance, they may exaggerate their own intelligence—whether in terms of its level, potential, or nature. In this context, we might see someone who has developed cognitively as a specialist, yet believes they possess the full capacity to think like an "intellectual"—the relative opposite of a specialist. An intellectual, by contrast, is someone capable of engaging in dialogue across the various disciplines that constitute the humanities—the core of the foundational sciences, along with the fields that serve as their complements—within the framework of the aforementioned interdisciplinarity.

This may stem from...for example, the belief held by a teacher that they can be an intellectual (and thus a humanist or philosopher) simply by practicing this profession. It is a hasty and misguided extrapolation—an appeal to authority, applied to oneself and amplified to the nth degree of ego—rather than a genuine vocation consistently put into practice.

However, these shortcomings—manifested as an attitude of pseudo-authority in matters where one demonstrates little or only a distorted grasp—are also evident in many self-proclaimed leftists who are neither teachers nor academics. A case in point is the significant segment of the artistic community that leans toward the political left. And perhaps—beyond "mere stupidity," though that may well be a factor—the hypothesis I am proposing here is that such individuals tend to possess a "specialist" cognitive profile. When they venture into debates on topics within the humanities and related fields—defending beliefs tied to these subjects, regardless of their factual accuracy—they reveal an inability to consistently apply sound judgment or discernment. They struggle to construct coherent arguments, even when defending their own (often misguided) ideas—a task at which a true intellectual excels.

Evidence for my hypothesis can be found precisely in this incapacity for independent reasoning or argumentation.

If you ask a technocrat or a specialist about their specific field, they will demonstrate a reasonable, or even excellent, level of "knowledge." However, true philosophical and scientific proficiency is not merely a matter of memorizing and replicating specialized information; it requires the ability to engage in a dialogue across a broader spectrum of human knowledge—particularly those domains most directly linked to the fundamental aspects (or facts) of our lives, such as the humanities and related disciplines. A deficiency in reasoning is clearly manifested by a lack of intellectual freedom and fluidity. Such individuals frequently resort to catchphrases, slogans, or other evasive tactics to avoid developing their own arguments or directly confronting their opponents—as well as their own ideas and beliefs. Instead of providing a well-founded justification for their positions, they merely seek to confirm what they already believe, revealing what may be a permanent underdevelopment in their capacity for reasoning. Therefore, one way to understand these qualitative differences in real-time reasoning—as suggested here—is that those who exhibit such deficits are cognitively "specialists," whereas more agile thinkers... and those who are truly sharp tend to be cognitively generalist—focused primarily on the most fundamental and influential knowledge in our lives. The first group, by contrast, reveals its deficiencies the moment it begins to express its own opinions and challenge the views of others. This also highlights a distinction in narcissism: between the person who keeps their thoughts to themselves and the one who loves to share what they "think" with others—and to "debate" it.

"Qualitative differences"

It is not merely, or even primarily, a matter of learning mathematics, writing beautifully, or memorizing a collection of facts. Rather, it concerns pure, straightforward reasoning, self-knowledge, intellectual honesty and humility, rationality, and even emotional intelligence—which is especially significant when directed inward.

A typical pseudo-intellectual is the antithesis of all this: intellectually arrogant and dishonest. They conflate opinion with fact and ideology with truth; they fail to recognize their own limitations—which is precisely why they end up behaving the way they do.

This does not imply that such individuals are found exclusively on the left side of the political-ideological spectrum. Rather, according to the cognitive hypothesis presented here, this cognitive profile is simply the most common one among them. This deficiency is often exacerbated by underlying deviations from a more natural order—such as psychiatric or neurological disorders—which impair higher-order cognitive functions like rationality. Indeed, a hallmark of many forms of psychopathology is a reduction in behavioral plasticity alongside a distortion of perception. (A mentally troubled individual may become increasingly self-absorbed—either as a defensive, hyper-vigilant reaction to the constant struggle to adapt, or because the disorder itself actively hinders the development of a more nuanced capacity for perception and understanding.)

Another symptomatic example of pseudo-intellectualism is an inability on avoiding contradiction

When you constantly fall into contradiction within your own thoughts, ideas, or beliefs, it tends to indicate that you have a poor grasp of what you defend or claim to believe—at least in any deep or precise sense. For if you truly understood that a contradiction—especially an absolute one—logically invalidates the belief or idea you are championing, you would revise that belief or the arguments you use to defend it—first and foremost to oneself. While contradictions are an inherent part of life, they vary in degree; a significant presence of absolute contradictions is a strong indicator of a poor grasp of one’s own beliefs. It is also important to emphasize that depth is not the same as complexity. One can understand an idea or thought with both precision and simplicity; conversely, one can become so mired in nuances that it results in "complexism"—an exaggerated or distorted mode of thinking that misses the most essential point.

Does the "specialist" type have a natural affinity for collectivism?

Although mediocre or simplistic* thinkers can be found anywhere across the political spectrum, they tend to be more densely concentrated on the Left—specifically within identity-based and Marxist circles.

* Not to be confused with a verbose pseudo-intellectual; a true thinker possesses genuine sophistication.

But why?

One possible explanation is that a stronger inclination toward the Left of the political-ideological spectrum correlates with a more narrow, "specialist" cognitive profile. This, in turn, often corresponds to deficiencies in broader, more generalized reasoning capabilities—a fact evidenced by individuals who, while possessing strong technical skills, prove simplistic or flawed as thinkers and debaters. Fair enough—but the "why" remains. A narrower cognitive profile may draw an individual toward collectivist social systems: first, because such systems are organized to function like a "superorganism," in which individuals serve as mere components; and second, because these "specialist" types—by virtue of their own specialized cognitive makeup—find themselves more naturally compatible with such systems than with social structures that are more atomized or based on individual competition. An attraction "toward cooperation"—a psychological aspect that also reflects one’s own cognitive nature. In other words, even though many may appear more psychologically individualistic—particularly those who self-identify with the Left—it has been shown that they are, in fact, more collectivist in this regard, given how closely they adhere to the collective standardization of their groups, both in thought and behavior.

While a collectivist nature is a very common tendency in social species—including humans, and spanning individuals from the center to the other side of the political-ideological spectrum—it is a byproduct of how such species have evolved. This evolution involved a rigorous division of adaptive tasks that benefit the group, even at the cost of suppressing individual autonomy. The degree of these collectivist cognitive and psychological tendencies appears to manifest more intensely at the extremes of the political-ideological spectrum. A key distinction is that, for those on the Left, these tendencies may be even more deeply rooted; they represent a departure from a more "natural" order—often accompanied by chronic feelings of inadequacy. In contrast, the Right has historically and structurally organized itself more in alignment with this "natural" order (hierarchies, family, reproduction, etc.). Consequently, those on the Left become even more committed to collectivist thought and behavior—much like how a significant deviation or imbalance creates greater dependency, or how a disorder increases behavioral stereotypy (limiting adaptive plasticity), thereby establishing a self-perpetuating cycle of dependency.

It is not merely "brainwashing."

If it were, many of these individuals would still be capable of arguing with a degree of intellectual freedom and fluency—even if only to defend erratic ideas or rigid, dogmatic beliefs. Since the opposite is what we observe, my "cognitive hypothesis" may hold more weight: that there exists a "mismatch"—an asymmetry—between one's conviction... ...the gap between believing one knows and the reality of knowing far less—a clear deficit in self-awareness—is often linked to the cognitive profile of a "specialist": someone who knows "a great deal (or more than just a little)" about a specific subject, as opposed to knowing "a little bit about everything." This is a more nuanced way to categorize such individuals than simply dismissing them as "stupid"—though they may well be—as this stupidity does not manifest uniformly; it possesses layers and subtleties...

If a specialist tends to have a more limited grasp of the world at large...

...could this be why they are more prone to ideological fanaticism and a preference for collectivist social systems?

Those who gravitate toward dogmatic systems of thought often reveal a deeper intellectual dependency—or perhaps an underlying insecurity regarding their own intelligence, specifically their capacity for rational thought—which drives this attachment to dogmatism. It may not be merely a matter of insecurity, but rather a subconscious perception of incapacity...It has served, in particular, to reinforce our instincts while leading us to believe that we are less dependent upon—and less influenced by—them than we truly are. This constitutes a form of abstract sophistication that yields highly dissonant results, as evidenced by the many wars ignited by and among human beings—conflicts in which genuine dialogue, and the capacity for reflection previously mentioned, have been cast aside.

Precisely because, cognitively, one functions like "a cell" within a social organism, any attempt to understand the world beyond one's own *milieu* reveals a provincialism no different from that of any other ordinary human being (who is typically more conservative)—even while masquerading as a "pseudo-cosmopolitan." Consequently, such an individual becomes dependently attached to ideological systems of beliefs, ideas, and thoughts.

Here lies another distinction between (genuine) philosophy and science, and between the true intellectual and the pseudo-intellectual.

Science seeks to suppress subjective experience in favor of greater objectivity, whereas philosophy strives to establish a constant dialogue between subjectivity and objectivity. Science depersonalizes even that which is most intimate to us, while philosophy personalizes even that which seems—or truly is—most distant.

A true intellectual or philosopher dedicates themselves to building bridges of dialogue between the subjective and the objective—a process also essential to the construction of moral principles.

A pseudo-intellectual, by contrast, leans too heavily into either objectivity or subjectivity—most commonly the latter—revealing a deficiency in a function that is vital to authentic philosophical *praxis*. It is precisely this incapacity that fosters irrational beliefs—beliefs which, worse still, are channeled toward demographic niches prone to incorporating them into their own ideological systems or worldviews.

"Neurodivergent" Left versus "Normal" Right

"Neurodivergent" is a euphemism for "insane" or "deviant"—terms once used to describe what was long considered an illness, a deviation, or a disorder (and, in many cases, has always been exactly that). The "Left" has embraced everything that deviates from what is deemed "normal"—that is, from what aligns with a more natural order—as a core cause, particularly within the realms of culture and identity politics. Yet, at its essence, this stems from a sense of inadequacy that has been present since the Left’s inception as an ideology and political force: the perspective of the weaker, the powerless, or the less dominant. As I have mentioned in other texts or reflections, if "nature" has favored "evil"—defined according to a human moralistic perspective—then the traditional right has represented this age-old power dynamic, while the left has served as a rallying point for the discontented. Furthermore, the "right" has not only embodied a more "natural" and potent form of oppression, but also the "good" that power brings—in this context, the advantage of being more closely aligned with "nature" (natural selection, adaptation, etc.), which includes intelligence itself. Consequently, if one sets aside the pervasive indoctrination that portrays everything associated with the right as inherently stupid or evil, it becomes clear that the right possesses both a positive and a negative legacy—one that manifests across all practical aspects of human life. Only now, in this era of decadence and degeneration, has much of what was always—and rightly—considered "wrong" come to be regarded as "right." One need only look at a "modern" building—ugly and simplistic—and compare it with the fantastic details of a church to see a pattern that extends into many other areas of life. This leads to one sensible conclusion: in many significant respects, human society—especially in the West—has declined dramatically. A second, related conclusion follows: we are either approaching or have already passed a point of equilibrium, entering a new "dark age." Yet, unlike the old order—which was more aligned with nature—this new era is defined by opposing forces that are seizing power and imposing themselves.

These deviations from what is logical or "in accordance with nature" manifest across various human dimensions—neurological, mental, cognitive, behavioral, and cultural. Few of those who deviate possess the capacity for rational self-reflection—or "free will"—sufficient to transcend their own instincts. This is what distinguishes them from the "normal" majority. Essentially, there is a tendency to invert basic logic, manifesting as a form of primary, subjective self-projection. For instance, a woman with hypersexual inclinations might seek to "naturalize" her behavior—even attempting to justify it scientifically—rather than acknowledging that she is experiencing a behavioral imbalance (regardless of whether or not this acknowledgment would actually change her actions).

To reiterate a point I have made in previous writings—some dating back quite a while—human beings, on average, tend to be more driven by instinct than they would like to admit, or than they believe themselves to be. Language, in particular, has served to reinforce these instincts, while simultaneously fostering the illusion that we are less dependent upon—and less influenced by—them than we truly are. It is a kind of abstract sophistication, yet one that carries real-world consequences. ...more dissonant—as exemplified by the many wars that have been ignited by and among human beings, in which genuine dialogue—rooted in the aforementioned capacity for reflection—has been disregarded...

Therefore, such a deviation—whether psychological or organic—inherently points toward an increased risk of distorted perception.Certain cognitive traits—such as a more limited profile regarding learning potential and comprehension—along with other mental characteristics, which do not necessarily represent deviations or an imbalance in functioning, can collectively destine an individual toward this type of impairment: a form of pseudo-intellectualism.

The left—represented by Lula and the Workers' Party (PT)—could win again in Brazil. But who, exactly, votes for them?

 Criminals, degenerates, and "useful idiots," for starters...

Let’s draw a parallel with Carlo Cipolla and his "Seven Laws of Human Stupidity."

I’m not referring to the text itself—which is quite good—but rather to a key component used to formulate these laws: his typology of behavioral tendencies, which categorizes members of our species into four groups: the intelligent, the criminal, the naive, and the stupid.

So, does it make any sense to keep voting for a party—or parties—that have held power for over twenty years, and whose ideologies have effectively pushed the country toward social chaos and the destruction of its cultural and intellectual foundations? An ideology that claims human life only begins at birth, yet simultaneously asserts that a man dressed as a woman can be considered a woman? Is this not a case of "2+2=5" taken to the nth degree, over and over again?

According to Cipolla, an "intelligent" person is one who contributes to the well-being of others while also benefiting themselves. It stands to reason that someone so constructive would hardly be ignorant or stupid enough to consistently believe, spread, or invent lies—especially those that are blatantly obvious—particularly when such falsehoods tend to be more harmful than beneficial to social balance and long-term progress.

Then there is the "naive" person, who contributes to others at their own expense—as opposed to the "criminal," who benefits themselves at the expense of others.

Finally, there is the "stupid" person, whose actions result in a net negative for both themselves and everyone else.

These are archetypes, and naturally, we all possess a bit of each—though some traits are more dominant than others.

In modern Western politics, how might the left and the right map onto these categories—especially the more problematic ones? 

As for criminals—even though the right has an extensive history of favoring those who commit crimes while wearing suits and ties, military uniforms, or even crowns—it is the left that has increasingly attracted "classic" criminals ever since it emerged as a political and social force. After all, it is the left that labels them "victims of society"—particularly those from the lower socioeconomic classes—advocating for them to have the maximum of rights and privileges, and it is the left that most strongly believes the criminal justice system should focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

Furthermore, a certain type of criminal or unscrupulous individual—the extreme hypocrite, characterized by a persistent behavioral and moral pattern of hypocrisy, or a significant dissonance between what they profess to believe and how they actually act—seems to abound on the "left." "Progressive" narratives, with their vague, subjective, and pretentiously altruistic or self-sacrificing tone, align perfectly with this type of behavior.

This is not to say that such individuals cannot also be found in abundance on the right; rather, the right tends to attract a different sort of criminal. The left, however, has gone a step further by adopting these individuals—especially those from lower social classes—as a group that is ideologically defensible.

The "chronically" naive individual also appears to be more common on the left than on the right. The left has honed its ability to act as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," espousing "benevolent" narratives, positioning itself alongside the "oppressed," and championing supposedly altruistic public policies—all while preaching self-sacrifice and submission to "oppressors." In reality, however, it is organizing itself to seize or consolidate power, ultimately becoming the new oppressors. Consequently, both the hypocritical criminal and the "profoundly naive" individual find themselves drawn to this side ...by these narratives—especially when they become hegemonic—with the distinction that the "naive" person tends to identify with the lamb on the surface, while the (consciously) hypocritical "villain" identifies with the wolf at their core.

The "naive" person also tends to be a simple-minded type who cannot see beyond appearances, believing in whatever is presented as emotion or motivation without seeking to verify its truth. This is the sort of person most susceptible to "wolves in sheep's clothing," possessing an underdeveloped capacity for moral discernment and self-defense—someone who, even as an adult, continues to think like a child in these interpersonal and psychological contexts.

Finally, there is the "intelligent" person—the most rational or wise type among those identified by Cipolla—who embodies a highly efficient model of intelligence in everyday life. This remains true even though, in the typically human realm, varying degrees of malice, naivety, and stupidity occur all too frequently.

Well, given that so-called "progressive" narratives are largely built upon lies and half-truths—and sustained by logical and moral fallacies—it is unlikely that an "intelligent" person would consistently align themselves with the Left. By the same token, I believe they would not deeply commit to the Right either, even if...It could be argued that the level of insanity on the left tends to be more pronounced, making the choice for the right less inherently irrational—or, rather, a "choice of the lesser evil," a sensible stance within highly imperfect social or adaptive environments.

Returning to the groups that most frequently vote for leftist parties and support their ideologies—criminals, degenerates, and "useful idiots"—if we map these onto the categories proposed by Carlo Cipolla in his "7 Laws of Human Stupidity," we inevitably observe a specific distribution of these types at the individual level, which then manifests collectively; certain groups of individuals will show a disproportionate representation of one type over others.

Thus, those who harm others for their own gain (criminals), those who harm themselves to benefit others, and those who harm both themselves and others—the classic "useful idiots"—emerge as the predominant types within the demographic of the left.

As for "degenerates," they constitute a somewhat parallel category; while they are likely more common among criminals, their prevalence depends on the specific nature of the "degeneration."

"Intelligent" (consistent) individuals would be exceptionally rare within these circles.

The right (in both economic and cultural dimensions) would exhibit a distribution closer to the human average, precisely because it represents—or encompasses—the more traditional, "typical" human being. In terms of the estimated frequency of these types, one might currently find: a disproportionate number of "naïve" individuals and criminals, a smaller proportion of "stupid" individuals, and a higher proportion of "intelligent" ones—or, perhaps, more balanced types, as one would expect from a typical human being.

I have previously discussed examples of public policies and their logical connections to the concept of stupidity as defined by Carlo Cipolla. Here, I conclude by providing further examples through specific public policies and proposals. Among the most stupid or naive ideas are those concerning mass immigration and the softening of criminal penalties.

The former is supposedly intended to strengthen the left-wing electorate. Yet, in the long run, replacing an electorate—part of which is already under ideological control—with one that is either religiously empowered or more socially problematic does not seem productive for those who aim to perpetuate their own exclusive hold on power. Even if the "imported" electorate were more passive, it makes little sense to replace an existing one that is already sufficiently under control—especially if such a replacement also entails a decline in average technical capacity, as would be the case, for instance, by replacing ethnic Europeans with people from Africa or the Middle East.

On an individual level, the average leftist—who is generally detached from traditionalist culture—has far more to lose from an increased presence of such groups within their own social spheres.

In any case, this policy fits Cipolla’s concept of stupidity: causing harm to others and to oneself without gaining any consistent benefit.

As for the softening of criminal penalties—with the notable exception of "thought crimes"—this increases public insecurity, making life more dangerous for the ordinary citizen by leaving them at the mercy of criminals who have been convicted, sentenced, and subsequently released after serving only a fraction of their time.

Yet, the delusions defended by those on the left—which they present as crystal-clear, absolute truths—are both numerous and dominant within their narratives. Consequently, an inescapable fact remains: systematized reason—or philosophy in its most consistent and self-coherent practice—stands in direct opposition to much of what the "left" advocates. This chasm has only widened with the deliberate emergence of a more culturally degenerate version of the left.

On High and Low IQ

 A higher or lower IQ is not exactly the same as better or worse intelligence.

A higher IQ suggests a greater capacity for accumulating and comprehending information and knowledge—that is, for handling complexity. Even so, it is important to emphasize that IQ tests measure potential rather than actual achievement. Therefore, a lower IQ tends to reflect a simpler form of intelligence, or a reduced capacity for accumulating and comprehending information and knowledge—or for dealing with complexity.

In any case, "simple" is not worse than "complex."

It depends.

Oversimplification and over-complexification are equally bad.

Being "less intelligent" refers more to being "cognitively simple" than to being "foolish"—if we define "stupidity" as an inability to comprehend or possess self-awareness (an ignorance of one's own limits and potential), even though this may correlate with cognitive simplicity. After all, there are many individuals with more complex intelligence who act stupidly—emotionally and/or intellectually—such as by fervently believing in fake news because they are unable to control their own cognitive biases.

A diferença entre classismo e anti-estupidez/The Difference Between Classism and Anti-Stupidity

 O que muitos entendem como classismo:

Não o genuíno preconceito de classe, mas o anti-incentivo ou anti-valorização da estupidez, especialmente via cultura

Por exemplo: achar funk carioca um estilo musical desprovido de qualidade artística, mediante a ausência predominante de qualquer beleza, sofisticação ou complexidade em suas letras e melodias. 

O conceito mais adequado para classismo, até para que não seja confundido com anti-relativização da qualidade artística, justamente uma das expressões mais típicas de valorização da estupidez, é o de discriminação de indivíduos com base em sua procedência social, por exemplo, de, afirmativamente, concluir que, qualquer indivíduo de classe trabalhadora é inerentemente inferior a qualquer indivíduo de classe alta. Portanto, não é "preconceito de classe" acreditar e/ou afirmar que um gênero musical, criado por indivíduos por determinada classe social e mais apreciado também pelos mesmos círculos sociais ou identitários de origem, é de baixa qualidade artística. Porque aqui a questão não é a procedência social do gênero, mas a sua qualidade...

2. Classismo não é apenas ou necessariamente esnobismo

Classismo não é apenas ou unicamente "preconceito de rico contra pobre" ou qualquer outro tipo de "esnobismo", porque também pode ser o oposto, de preconceito "de pobre contra rico", isto é, quando é realmente preconceito ou generalização irrealista e negativa de indivíduo, grupo, nação...  Classismo é qualquer tipo de preconceito genuíno, nesse caso, de grupo, e mais especificamente de classe social. 

Classismo, de maneira geral, não é o mesmo que "não tolerar estupidez". Aliás, o próprio classismo pode ser considerado uma forma de estupidez, quando alguém é valorizado ou desvalorizado apenas pela classe social a que pertence (em dado momento ou período) em desprezo às suas características mais intrínsecas, que também são as mais valorosas, como o caráter e a inteligência (o que, objetivamente falando, mais importa). 

What many understand as classism:

Not genuine class prejudice, but the anti-incentive or anti-valorization of stupidity, especially through culture.

For example: considering ''funk carioca'' a musical style devoid of artistic quality, due to the predominant absence of any beauty, sophistication, or complexity in its lyrics and melodies.

The most appropriate concept for classism, so as not to be confused with the anti-relativization of artistic quality—precisely one of the most typical expressions of valuing stupidity—is the discrimination of individuals based on their social origin, for example, affirmatively concluding that any individual from the working class is inherently inferior to any individual from the upper class. Therefore, it is not "class prejudice" to believe and/or affirm that a musical genre, created by individuals from a certain social class and also appreciated by the same social or identity circles of origin, is of low artistic quality. Because here the issue is not the social origin of the gender, but its quality...

2. Classism is not only or necessarily snobbery

Classism is not only or solely "prejudice of the rich against the poor" or any other type of "snobbery," because it can also be the opposite, prejudice "of the poor against the rich," that is, when it is truly prejudice or an unrealistic and negative generalization of an individual, group, nation... Classism is any type of genuine prejudice, in this case, of a group, and more specifically of a social class.

Classism, in general, is not the same as "not tolerating stupidity." In fact, classism itself can be considered a form of stupidity, when someone is valued or devalued only by the social class to which they belong (at a given moment or period) in disregard of their most intrinsic characteristics, which are also the most valuable, such as character and intelligence (which, objectively speaking, matters most).

Speculation about the geographic, ethnic/racial, sexual distribution... of the human types defined by the author of "The Fundamental Laws of Human Stupidity"

 Carlo Cipolla, an Italian economist who wrote this book and who I have already commented on and criticized in some of my texts. In this text, I will speculate on how these types or phenotypes/archetypes are distributed...

First, let's look at them:

The intelligent: whose actions benefit themselves and others

The bandit: whose actions benefit themselves at the expense of others

The naive: whose actions benefit others at their expense

And the stupid: whose actions harm themselves and others

I have already written a text criticizing these laws and what he wrote about them. For example, I criticized the restricted definition of the stupid type, as if the naive and the bandit could not also be considered as categories of stupid. Although I consider my criticism valid, it is not important to emphasize this point here, since it will be based on the definitions proposed by Cipolla that I will work on my speculation about their distribution among human groups.

Cipolla also wrote about what happens (obviously) in a society when there is a growing predominance of stupid people, in his fifth fundamental law of human stupidity. I include a relevant excerpt from this text to illustrate his specific thoughts on this topic, below:

Fifth law

5. The stupid person is the most dangerous person there is.

''And its corollary:

A stupid person is more dangerous than a criminal.

We can't do anything about the stupid. The difference between societies that collapse under the weight of their stupid citizens and those that transcend them is the composition of the non-stupid. Those that progress despite their stupid people have a high proportion of people acting intelligently, those who offset the losses of the stupid by bringing gains to themselves and their fellow men.

Declining societies have the same percentage of stupid people as intelligent ones. But they also have high percentages of defenseless people and, Cipolla writes, “an alarming proliferation of bandits with connotations of stupidity.”

“This change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the [stupid] fraction and makes decline a certainty,” Cipolla concludes. “And the country goes to hell.”

(I also criticized what he pointed out in this excerpt, in this text: “Critically analyzing the 5 laws of human stupidity”).

Speculative proposal on the distribution of types or categories of people defined by Carlos Cipolla

Intelligent, naive, criminal/bandit and stupid

* These types seem to be summarized definitions of compositions of personality traits and intelligence in which one of the characteristics tends to stand out more, for example, naivety.

* Between the intelligent and the stupid, the naive and the criminal/bandit can also be considered mixed types that combine traits of these phenotypes that would be more regular, precisely the first ones mentioned.

In ascending order, from the most common types to the most unusual, based on the current context, the year 2024, and considering the individual and social perspectives.

It is worth mentioning that I will not take any further risks, speculating percentages of how these types would be distributed and that therefore, even the least common type for a given population, according to my speculation, is not explicitly stated to be much less common than the others. 

By geographic distribution:

Americas:

North America

USA: naive, intelligent/criminal/stupid

Canada: naive, intelligent, stupid/criminal

Mexico and Central America: naive/criminal/stupid, intelligent

Brazil and South America (excluding Argentina and Uruguay): naive/criminal/stupid, intelligent

Argentina and Uruguay: naive, criminal/stupid/intelligent

Haiti(?): criminal/stupid, naive, intelligent

Comment: a constant in many countries is the possible predominance of the "naive" type, whose actions benefit others at their expense, mainly due to the social context, since there is no country that is not socially structured in a way that produces a hierarchical pyramid of parasitism of the upper classes, at the top, in relation to the other classes, differing only in the how unequally and explicitly this parasitism is expressed, less significant, but existing, in first world "social democracies", such as the Scandinavian countries, and more significant in underdeveloped countries.

In the case of the Americas, I perceive a great difference in this distribution of human types proposed by Cipolla, in which the only two first world American countries, and which are not Caribbean tax havens, Canada and the USA, would present a less problematic distribution, even with differences between them: the first more similar to a European country, and the USA in a more singular distributive situation, due to its own internal and idiosyncratic diversity, resulting from its superlative dimensions of territory and demographics, as well as its unparallel history. My speculation also highlights something that, for many, especially Latin Americans, is considered an inconvenient truth, that it is their/our own people who, on average, contribute to keeping their/our countries in a state of underdevelopment, not only the historical guilt of the European colonizer or their political and economic "elites", if these also tend to express a lack of common character in the populations of these countries, of being representative of them. Hence the greater proportion of the "bandit"/criminal type.

I highlighted Haiti, because it is the poorest country in the Americas: half of the island of Hispaniola, marked by a history of civil wars, bloody dictatorships and predominant poverty. For a country as chaotic and precarious as this one, is it by chance the product only of its troubled history or also of its own population? (Except for its "intelligent" fraction, which definitely does not seem to consist of a majority). Furthermore, its status as a social and political pariah state, which has been going on for many decades, may also be contributing to empowering the most selfish types of its population, very abundant in its spaces of power and typical of dictatorships or authoritarian states. In any case, it is also possible to speculate whether this type is more common in this country than in others (something more intrinsic) and whether this factor would be an important part of explaining its very problematic situation. 

Europe:

Eastern Europe: naive, criminal, intelligent, stupid

(Countries like Slovenia and Estonia would do better, at least according to their socioeconomic indicators)

Western Europe: naive, intelligent/criminal, stupid

Northern Europe (Scandinavia): naive, intelligent, stupid/criminal

Southern Europe: naive/criminal, intelligent, stupid

Comment: Stereotypes being confirmed??

Are Southern and Eastern Europeans, on average, more corruptible and, therefore, with more criminals, proportionally?

Are Northern Europeans, on average, more naive?

Perhaps reflecting the distributions of personality types themselves, in which introverts would be more common among the naive and intelligent types (more common in the north of the old continent), and extroverts among the bandit and stupid types (more common in southern Europe).

However, introverted types also seem to be more common in Eastern Europe. For a possible difference in relation to Northern Europe, which would also explain its cultural and political differences, would be the variation in personality traits, for example: melancholic types, more naive, more common in Scandinavia and choleric, more likely to be bandit, more common in Eastern Europe (based on the personality typology of the four temperaments, which I have already suggested ratifying as valid, excluding only the hypothesis related to health that was also developed in classical Greece and from which the four temperaments derive); beyond historical-contextual differences, although ethnic differences* between Nordic//Germanic and Slavic peoples seem to be deeper than exclusive results of their respective histories.

* Correlatives with variations in mental traits, personality (intensity, types) and intelligence (levels, types...)

It is even interesting to think about how these proposed types can be more comprehensive as definitions of intelligence than other ways of approaching and comparing it, such as through IQ testing, if it is not expressed only through typically considered cognitive abilities, of a technical nature, such as linguistic and mathematical abilities, but also through creativity, rationality and emotional intelligence, that is, of a contextual nature, manifesting itself in all contexts, in which the participation and influence of personality traits, considered "non-cognitive", is as important as the "cognitive" ones.

It would also be important to think about how intrinsic these types are: to what extent are they reactive reflections of the environments in which we live, of more specific contexts, and to what extent do they reflect ourselves, or our deepest dispositions...

If, for example, individual X is more naive for structural reasons or also genetic/biological/hereditary??

I would bet that it is a combination of these influences and more, in which intrinsic factors, of the individual himself, would be more influential or determining, although extrinsic factors, of the environment, also have an influential role, but more in the sense of contributing to channeling pre-existing tendencies and never of forging them without a previous context of predisposition, so that, if someone is more naive, it is not exclusively because of his environment, but also because he already has this tendency or predisposition and that it was exacerbated by his interactions in the environments in which he finds himself. Therefore, this thought suggests a constant crossing or intersection between the individual and contextual perspectives, once again, the example of the possible predominance of naive people in most countries, not only due to intrinsic disposition, but also as a reflection of how societies are organized (in a variably parasitic way that involuntarily places the majority of the population in the position of deceived or exploited subordinates).

Africa:

North Africa: bandit/naive, stupid, intelligent

Sub-Saharan Africa: bandit, stupid/naive, intelligent

Comment: forgive me all those good Samaritans who only cultivate sweet thoughts about our species, especially about certain groups that have a history and a present of poverty and civilizational backwardness (although there is a certain relativity in determining what is civilizational progress or backwardness, which can easily be problematized, such as highlighting the typically parasitic character of complex societies, excessively verticalized, in social terms). I know that this is not the habit of "left-wing" moral puritanism, but we must prioritize the facts so that we can seek truly effective approaches to combat the social, economic and/or moral problems of our species, and this will not be done by embracing beautiful but fallacious narratives... Because if it is a social environment of wars, violence and poverty that incites our most selfish side, it is still unlikely that we will all react in the same way if or when subjected to similar circumstances. The evidence corroborates my statement... It may also be, and it is very likely that it is, that a very problematic social environment primarily reflects the actions of the populations themselves, such as pointing fingers at the people who live in a neighborhood for the dirtiness of their streets rather than looking for other culprits. So, the social problems of countries that were once colonies of European metropolises, especially African and Latin American countries, are not the exclusive result of European colonialism, but mainly of their own actions, of their "elites" and of their own populations, of course, not of all, but of a potentially non-negligible part, unfortunately. An example of this is urban crime in cities like Lagos, in Nigeria, and São Paulo, here, in Brazil; in general, in the endemic lack of solidarity and respect among the inhabitants of many underdeveloped countries, even more so than in the "developed" ones, which contributes to complicating their socioeconomic situations. Always emphasizing, once again, that this is not the entire population, whether in Africa, Nigeria or São Paulo, but that it is also not a tiny minority, and even in certain cases one might think that it is a majority. And even if it is a situation that is impossible to correct or improve, but not in the politically correct, simple and cute way that many believe.

Consequently, if there is no generalization (absolute association) of causality between racial or ethnic group and behavior, then there is no genuine or objectively determined "racism" in these statements.

In the case of Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, it is even possible to think of a less harsh explanation, still inevitably non-victimizing. That the human populations that live in this part of the African continent would be, for the most part, descendants of hunter/gatherers (and not of farmers or peasants), which would explain the cultural and cognitive mismatch between their average capacities for administration and social organization and the level of civilization that the colonizers imposed and left, after they passed their colonies back into the hands of their original "owners". In this sense, it can even be said that this perceived inability to manage complex societies by the majority of these populations is perfectly understandable, more understandable than in relation to populations that have evolved historically, for centuries, in civilized environments, and also do not present true civilizational excellence, which are far from it, which includes even many so-called first world countries (whether as a result of a gradual or punctual loss of this capacity, or even a chronic inability to develop it). Another relevant point that should always be emphasized is that, in addition to the proportion of these types, the way in which they are distributed hierarchically can also contribute to developing or delaying societies, such as, for example, in the case of countries in which their political and economic "elites" are definitely not composed of a large majority of intelligent individuals, but rather of criminals, even if their populations have many intelligent individuals, that is, if they are being underutilized. So, it is not enough to just know whether there are more of this or that type, but whether the worst type has predominated in spaces of power, as has been the case in practically all human societies and especially in the most chaotic ones, such as those in Africa.

Asia:

Northeast Asia: naive, intelligent/criminal, stupid (excluding China: criminal/intelligent/naive, stupid).

Southeast Asia: naive/criminal, intelligent/stupid

Indian Subcontinent: naive, stupid/criminal, intelligent

Middle East: criminal/naive, stupid, intelligent

Comment: also based on what I have noticed, types that contribute more negatively than positively, socially, seem to predominate in the less developed Asian regions, and, of course, also maintaining the high prevalence of naive people, based on the logic commented above, especially from a social context, of structural dominance of parasitism of the upper classes (especially of certain sectors) over the lower ones, in which a majority submits to the economic exploitation of a minority, literally working to enrich it, instead of there being a more egalitarian distribution of the wealth produced.

My observations:

Japan would stand out more positively in the entire Asian continent, more similar to the developed countries of the West;

China and the rest of East Asia would present a pattern more similar to the Asian continent;

Again, the underdevelopment of most Asian regions (but not only Asia) does not reflect only their historical-social context, but also the psychological and cognitive composition of the human types in their populations, such as those proposed by Carlo Cipolla, from the top to the base of their hierarchies. In fact, this composition of human types would be a more causal factor at the level of social and economic development, while the historical and social situation would be more of a dynamic reflection of this factor over time.

Social class

Rich: criminal, intelligent/naive, stupid

Middle class: naive/intelligent, criminal, stupid

Poor: criminal/naive, stupid, intelligent (?)

Comment: without wanting to "pull the wool over my eyes" for the social class in which I, theoretically and vaguely, fit, but it seems that, based on the possible perception that those in the middle class tend to have a relatively more balanced temperament, less greedy or impulsive, and also an average level of intelligence sufficient to be able to work in professions that pay reasonable salaries, that is, that they tend to express less extreme mental characteristics and that would end up reflecting in their positions in the social hierarchy, the same can be said about the other classes, however, with different tendencies: the "rich" being more prone to greed and, therefore, unscrupulous, in fact, their material wealth as a result of this, and as for the "poor", a greater disposition for impulsive behaviors and that are both respectively related to tendencies towards high and low cognitive abilities, explaining, in large part, but not all, their social situations (poverty is also a historical and arbitrary imposition of the "elites").

Religiosity

Atheist: naive, intelligent/stupid, criminal

Religious: naive, intelligent/criminal/stupid

Comment: based on what I have noticed about self-declared atheists, and disregarding those individuals who declare to have some religious belief, but it seems to be more a matter of pragmatics and/or social conformity than of a genuine disposition, this distribution of human types proposed by Cipolla for this group seems reasonable to me, with more naive and intelligent people and fewer criminals, but with a not so modest proportion of stupid people, especially due to the correlation with ideological fanaticism. In the case of self-declared religious people, it seems to me that this distribution is more balanced, especially because it is a much larger population than that of atheists, logically deducing that it contains more diversity of types. But also due to the psychological and cognitive nature of atheists, especially, a more homogeneous group, culturally, ideologically and intellectually. In any case, perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare them with religious fundamentalists. Because, for this group, I bet on a great parity between the naive, criminal and stupid types, which would not change much in relation to religious people, in general.

It is worth noting that this definition of intelligence by Cipolla seems to focus more on individual actions than on the quality of the intentions that lead to these actions and that is why I included the social context, since there is no way to separate them completely, especially based on this concept that was worked on by him.

Race:

Whites: naive/intelligent, bandit/stupid

Orientals: naive/intelligent/bandit, stupid

Jews (ethnicity): bandit/intelligent, naive, stupid

Blacks of African origin: bandit, stupid, naive/intelligent

Comment: possibly the most controversial comparison of all, but a necessary one, and one that has already been made above, indirectly, by nationalities. But since I do not submit to ideological filters to signal "canine loyalty" to biased narratives and discourses,including thinking that the only way to, in fact, understand a situation and seek the most effective means to begin to solve it, even more so when dealing with a situation that can be considered problematic, then, there is no way I can abstain from this battlefront against totalitarianisms, especially the "good" ones, based on emotional blackmail and/or moral fallacies and that have ulterior, third, or fourth intentions... Because here, once again, I only apply this typology to what can be perceived in the reality of human populations, categorized by racial or ethnic criteria, in which white Caucasians, especially those of European origin, and Northeast Asians, present the most favorable distributions or proportions of Cipolla's human types, with more intelligent and less stupid people, although they also present not at all modest proportions of naive people, who tend to be predominant, and of criminals, who tend to predominate at the top of their social hierarchies. What happens or has happened, until now, in this last century, especially, is a greater activity of the intelligent types that are already more abundant in these populations, compared to others. However, this relatively favorable pendulum has been regressing, particularly in Western societies, with the ideological or cultural hegemony of "wokeism", a kind of "virus" whose infection destroys the immune system of the affected society, destroying its most important bases ("social harmony", ethno-cultural cohesion...) that keep it functioning at a high level.

Sex

Men: bandit/intelligent, naive/stupid

Women: naive, intelligent/stupid, bandit

Comment: this distribution of Cipolla's human types, also according to my observations, would be more favorable to men intellectually, but not emotionally and morally. Because it is that situation that has been perceived, of there being more men among geniuses, but also among criminals, and the opposite pattern for women, of presenting less extreme statistical tendencies.

Sexual orientation

Heterosexuals: naive/bandit/intelligent, stupid

LGBTs: naive, stupid/intelligent/criminal

Comment: heterosexuals represent the human average, as they are the majority. Therefore, with a possible tendency for greater parity between naive, criminals and intelligent, although this does not mean that the proportion of chronically or predominantly stupid human beings is small. LGBTs, on the other hand, would present a greater incidence of stupid types in relation to heterosexuals.

Politicians: criminal, stupid, intelligent/naive

Artists (the group, in general): naive, stupid/intelligent, criminal

Businesspeople: criminal, intelligent/stupid, naive

Comment: three examples of professional classes and their stereotypes, if these types of Cipolla are applied, will be reiterated: both the political and merchant classes, with an abundance of criminals or chronically selfish people, while the artistic class would have a prevalence of naive types. Also note that the profile of artists would be opposite to that of businessmen.

Leftists (followers, not their political "elites" and which also applies to those below): naive/stupid/intelligent, criminal

Rightists: naive/criminal/intelligent/stupid

Comment: "conservative" rightists and "progressive" leftists, despite presenting some average differences in beliefs and behaviors, would be relatively similar in this distribution of types, with a predominance of naive people and a more equal distribution of types. They would differ in the proportion of criminals (greater among those on the right) and stupid people (greater among those on the left). And always emphasizing that the type considered less common is not necessarily insignificant in statistical terms, as it also depends on the representation of the other types in the same group or population.

Scientists: smart/criminal, naive, stupid

-- Academics: naive, smart/stupid/criminal

Teachers: naive, smart/stupid, criminal

Activists: naive/stupid, smart, criminal

4 or 3 intellectual classes and ½, the most intelligent of which would logically be that of genuine scientists, which is why I separated them from academics, a category that is vaguer in terms of the definition of science in the sense of a profession.

Teachers would be in a more intermediate position in this ranking, while activists would occupy the lowest position. It is also notable the increase in frequency of the stupid type concomitant with the decrease of the bandit type, from the highest level to the lowest, a possibly high incidence of bandits among scientists and of stupid people among academics (the vast majority of times represented by university professors and undergraduates), which seems illogical in theory, but not in reality, especially if we base ourselves on the weak criteria that have been used in the evaluation and selection processes of both groups, for example, that there is a tacit disregard for the assessment of capacity or qualitative proficiency for scientific work, essentially including adherence to and respect for the most basic principles of science, such as intellectual honesty and impartiality.

Uma exceção à lei de ouro da estupidez humana de Carlo Cipolla/An Exception to Carlo Cipolla's Golden Law of Human Stupidity

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

Quando uma pessoa se comporta de maneira estúpida com grande frequência, sim, é perfeitamente possível considerá-la, por esse conceito, uma pessoa cronicamente estúpida. Porém, existem situações ou cenários que são exceções a essa lei ou regra, especialmente quando se torna desejável ou até inevitável que se tome uma decisão que possa prejudicar a si mesmo e outros. Um exemplo que eu, inclusive, estou vivenciando nesse período em que escrevo esse pensamento, de conviver com um idiota crônico e apresentar certo grau de dependência a ele, nesse caso, financeira, mas por causa do convívio muito difícil (ele, além de estúpido, é narcisista), desejar que ocorra um afastamento ou mesmo que aconteça algo de ruim com essa criatura para que precipite uma ruptura desse convívio, mesmo que possa me prejudicar e a outros envolvidos. 

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

When a person behaves stupidly very frequently, yes, it is perfectly possible to consider her, by this concept, a chronically stupid person. However, there are situations or scenarios that are exceptions to this law, especially when it becomes desirable or even inevitable to make a decision that could harm yourself or others. An example that I, in fact, am experiencing during the period in which I write this thought, of living with a chronic idiot and presenting a certain degree of dependence on him, in this case, financial, but because of the very difficult coexistence (he, in addition to being stupid , is a narcissist), I wish for a separation to occur or even for something bad to happen to this creature so that it precipitates a rupture in this relationship, even if it could harm me and others involved.

Sobre a manifestação não-verbal ou física da estupidez/On the nonverbal or physical manifestation of stupidity

 A manifestação mais literal ou física da estupidez pode ser notada por um déficit severo ou generalizado de atenção, que pode ou tende a se manifestar conjuntamente a uma incapacidade de se estabelecer uma coerência ou consistência intelectual, geralmente consequências de um déficit igualmente severo em autoconsciência//autoconhecimento e/ou também de um narcisismo exacerbado... 

Então, a manifestação mais literal da inteligência é basicamente o oposto disso, de atenção constante ao que se pensa e ao que se faz, que refletem uma autoconsciência e um autoconhecimento mais desenvolvidos. E mesmo no caso de haver um déficit de atenção, a própria percepção de que o apresenta já mostra uma maior atenção sobre si mesmo, suas ações, reações e reverberações, e que ainda pode desenvolvê-la a ponto de conseguir estabelecer um maior controle sobre esse déficit. 

The most literal or physical manifestation of stupidity can be noted by a severe or generalized deficit in attention, which can or tends to manifest itself in conjunction with an inability to establish intellectual coherence or consistency, usually consequences of an equally severe deficit in self-awareness/ /self-knowledge and/or also exacerbated narcissism...

So, the most literal manifestation of intelligence is basically the opposite of this, of constant attention to what one thinks and what one does, which reflects a more developed self-awareness and self-knowledge. And even in the case of an attention deficit, the very perception that it presents already shows greater attention to oneself, one's actions, reactions and reverberations, and that one can still develop it to the point of being able to establish greater control over this deficit.

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

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

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

1. Políticas de abrandamento e do abolicionismo penal 

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

2. Políticas de imigração em massa ou multiculturalismo

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

3. Políticas "progressistas" na educação

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

3. Destruição do meio ambiente por lucros

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Policies of criminal punishment relaxation and penal abolitionism

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

2. Mass immigration policies or multiculturalism

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

3. "Progressive" policies in education

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

3. Destruction of the environment for profits

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

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

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

* Based on this

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