Short Essays on Set Topics
Knowledge != Intelligence 20/02/2026
For those that don't know, the title says Knowledge does not equate to intelligence. I just really like the elegance of using coding language.
Yes, I recognize that this post might sound similar to an earlier one I replied to. I am now moving on to a different perspective.
The Basics There is something that often gets confused in our present day. That the lack of knowledge circulating around in the post modern day is not without irony and probably by design is certain.
Knowledge by the Oxford dictionary definition means:
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Intelligence by the Oxford dictionary:
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Do you see the difference now? The simple act of reading is knowledge.
Intelligence is applying the knowledge that you have obtained. If you read and do apply what you read or think critically about it, you are showing your intelligence.
Libraries still exist, self-help books are abundant, classic literature is the easiest it has ever been to attain now than at any point in history, and most of all, we have phones that mold themselves into our everyday lives in most every way imaginable.
With all of that in mind, we are increasingly (in the West) the most ignorant as a populace we have ever been. On a less correlated yet still related topic, our IQ's are also going down as well. I will explain later on why IQ is not correlated entirely to knowledge. For now, let's stick to the main topic at hand. Why our IQ is going down is a topic for another day.
Many people have the belief that the more you know about a subject, the smarter you are in every other sense.
It's not a backwards belief, but it's just not entirely true either.
Another Example We might believe for example, that a man who studied for years to receive their degree and become a doctor is smarter than us just by default. Simply because we did not attain the same degree.
It's not true. The man merely showed his merit by going to school and studying for years. However anyone can learn to become a doctor, or an engineer, it does not matter.
That does not mean that they will be a good doctor, of course, you need a certain level of intelligence to be a good one but most anyone can graduate if they really wanted to in that degree or any other degree.
The mind is a muscle, if you train it to study, it will do it better and better each time. Now, having a studious mind simply means that you have the ability to learn, and to retain knowledge you have learned.
Does that mean you are smarter? Or does it mean you have trained your mind (by various factors and life choices) to make the correct choice to become knowledgeable?
Apply that now to IQ and by extent to genetics. You can't equate the two, because knowledge is simply learning and intelligence is purely genetics and health related.
The Real World You will probably know in your life of a few people who did not study, but you consider incredibly witty or smart. Those people, probably have a higher IQ than most by default. They were born lucky enough to be able to critically think and have much better discernment and possibly even instinct than the majority of the population. However, they often may not fall into the rat race that is Western Culture.
OR perhaps they do, let's say they studied and became a doctor. Now, they're at the very top of what it means to be a doctor, not by pure merit, but by the added factor that their brain can process information much more detailed and critically than the first doctor I mentioned earlier. The first doctor, is simply a regular man who became a doctor by added chance and merit. Perhaps the more intelligent one moved it a step forward, they studied to become a surgeon instead.
In Conclusion The definition of intelligence is already telling you that you need to be able to apply the skills that you do learn. Let's be real, some people do it better than others. The majority may not be more intelligent because of several different factors.
Several factors that include:
nutrition
genetics
childhood
So, if someone calls you smart for being well-learned. You can correct them by saying that "I am only smart because I can apply that knowledge, not merely through retainment."
RE: Intelligence != Education and the Ideology that fuels the belief 27/01/2026
I had fun reading this post, and a couple of others mentioned by the author (the old man?)
I'm sure this will be incredibly popular with the bearblog community, but please, keep your discontent to yourself.
I just want to blog about what I want to blog. Read if you dare.
To add my two cents to the topic linked above; There is no correlation between intelligence and wealth. The dogma that the rich are more intelligent because of education is a half-truth, just like everything the progressive leftist agenda will get some well meaning person to believe if they are young and or naive. One can believe it because it is a half-truth, but objective reality is a full discourse on human nature, not a one-liner fact meant to sour our views of others because they are simply better off than we are.
We are equal in the fact that we are all human, yes, but we are not equal to anyone else in terms of skill or capabilities or merit and that is normal. That is just life.
Not everyone is fully capable of becoming a rocket scientist, or an engineer, or even a doctor. We innately know this when we begin to test ourselves and our own personal limits.
Not everyone can hold onto wealth, to be rich is to have a combination of traits, and a sprinkle of luck. The incorrect outlook, is to envy the rich (or anyone), and to say they need their wealth taken away (simply for being rich).
That is a weak-minded man's conclusion to a problem they cannot solve, because they simply cannot reach the top themselves.
Here's where the interminable victim mentality crumbles: In this day in age, most everyone has a computer in their pocket. Or even some other form of tech that has accessible high speed internet. The library is a free resource and there are various government programs that give you free laptops, supplies, phones.
The ideology that fuels this belief Which ideology is it...I will simply call it the ideology.
The whole point of this ideology, anyway, is that simple minded victims are doing some man above them's work. They are a foot soldier for someone else's cause. Chaos cleans the class slate. When the smoke has finally cleared and everything has been turned to rubble, the ones that caused the commotion will take the place of the current elites.
One who understands this and follows it is simply evil. The majority that do follow this radical ideology, however, are victims.
A combination of skewed beliefs, misplaced ideals and confusion are the perfect storm. To top it all off, take true education away, take classic history away and put an emphasis on individualism and the perfect storm of confused, often mentally unstable people willing to do the narratives bidding is often the result.
Unfortunately, many are stuck in this daydream fantasy that they are better because they are fighting on the right side of history. Or perhaps they are simply afraid of coming out and showing any dissident because those around them are rabid about any ideas outside of the mainstream.
Maturing, however, is understanding that the right side of history is not the one that you are on.
Back to the original post The old man (or however he is called) mentions this as well. -->
It follows that by adhering to the default set of cultural values, conflating education with intelligence reinforces the status quo, it anchors us into the zeitgeist, it doesn’t makes us subconsciously question if our entire system of belief is after all… wrong? The kinda is because, of course you are intelligent, and your intelligent brain notices things, things your education has tried very hard to make you reject with disgust, and this creates the modern schizophrenic mind, where we can keep as true two opposite views without breaking the illusion of coherence.
The tidbit above that the [the old man and the screen] is mentioning is something that is referred to as "double-think" in the book 1984 by George Orwell. That is, where someone believes two things that contradict each other at the same time, but both occupy contradictions in their head.
What that leads to is essentially what he called it, a modern schizophrenic mind. When a person believes two things that contradict each other at once, it leaves the door open to even more contradictions.
That is to say their paradigm already allows for gaps in reasoning to occur. They are essentially programmed to accept whatever comes their way because, well, it already doesn't have to make sense to become accepted. If someone practices doublethink, they just have to simply blindly accept what is being said and react accordingly.
It is to say the least, that the majority of people are being fed the fast food version of idealogy. One where digestion of the subjects that they are being spoon-fed is not necessary; it's already been digested for them.
The only job of the victim is to commit to outrage, to tap into the tribalism that fuels us all and to direct that rage at whatever the forces that be tells them to in that moment.
In this case, it has worked incredibly well for the forces that be (do be do ♫♩), it has worked so well that the narrative does not even have to make sense anymore.
Few seem to have a memory of previous events, and "Oceania is not at war with EastAsia" seems to be our current trajectory.
The reasoning behind the rage does not matter, what matters is the action. The strong emotions behind it. This is not a left or right issue, it is beyond that. Again, I digress (as I tend to do).
Isn't it funny? Irony has always her say in writing history, and this is not different, the revolution that launched liberal values across the West, and with it the world, had to remove any divine from our bodies to make us all equal (Liberté, égalité, fraternité), had to enforce an idea that we are all the same, and if not, that we can all become the same. This struggle is very real to this day with DEI being the latest re-branding of century old ideas.
The reality and the ultimate conclusion to progressive ideology is that natural human nature is contorted and inverted because of it.
A key difference between our natural ideals and that of progressive ones is that the progressive ones do not fully satisfy our needs.
That void it leaves in us is what drives someone to more activism, since they cannot feel true satisfaction unless acting in dysfunctional ways because of the programming.
Their natural inclinations have been tucked away and now, the surface is only an amendable heart and mind.
The want to fulfill our duties as a human being and to help the collective is being soured and manipulated.
To the point where, most believe that the onus of succeeding is not on their shoulders. Rather, there is always someone else which can take the blame for our personal misfortune in life.
So why is it so tempting to accept what we are being fed? One is more likely to fall into the progressive belief system, for a variety of reasons. I can list some. If the reader is still reading this post, idk. I applaud you for reading this far.
It is easy to fall into ideologies and 'isms' if you have:
not been instilled with a solid ideal system in early life.
Fear has taken over the critical thinking sector of the mind to the point where every move made is filled with anxiety and dread.
Lack something to look forward to, such as religion.
Have no basic knowledge or understanding of history, or incredibly propagandized history is all that you know
Think that you are the victim because of your color of skin, or your monetary status, or because of your sex.
Many other reasons could be listed. Anyway, my writing battery is empty. I got it out of my system. sigh.
Authenticity
12/01/2026 Authenticity today is often mistaken for simple honesty. Authenticity transcends honesty. It is the next layer, it is honesty in a meta-physical and a physical sense. It revolves around the actions that happen to show someone’s true moral principle and compass. Someone will defend a child from a rabid dog for example, because they value the child’s life over their own life in that moment. It is an example of their moral stance and the importance they put on that child over their own, but that action led to the authentic courage they have showcased by defending said child from the rabid dog. But authenticity could also mean an”original” in the case of art. An authentic painting is one of a kind, yet it ties into the moral definition of the word. It is showing us how rare, or unique, an action derived from someone’s morals can be. Being authentic is not always about the liberal form of wearing your heart on your sleeve; nor is it about being a radical bleeding heart about each subject. Rather, authenticity does not have to be radical. In whichever way it shows for someone, it coincides with their true feelings and thoughts, we have a habit as human beings of showing our entire belief system through the prototypes and the boxes we align with. It is simply a cause of having too much individualistic freedom in todays society. Yet you cannot tell someone’s moral compass through what they wear, and yet, it is a good hint as to where they could be. But authenticity is truly about genuine alignment of actions with beliefs, so why do we equate it to physical dressage mostly? Because in todays individualistic world, our way of dress is and or could be a form of authenticity, and it often does show what we truly believe, often times through what we align with, and the niches we follow. However, what it means for us as a collective, is that when authenticity is selectively established only through physical signals, rather than actions based off of true moral and principle, it is simply a show, and all true authenticity is lost. But this is all just my opinion, and I’d like to hear yours. What do you think?