March 18, 2025
Types of Intelligence Bifurcation: Context for the Schism
Throughout history, intelligence has been categorized and divided in various ways, each model offering a lens through which to explore and try to understand cognitive capabilities and limitations of all forms of intelligence, or for what we frame and name as intelligence. Before diving into the specific bifurcation discussed in this article, hereʻs a brief explanation of the various types of intelligence bifurcation to give some broader orientation. Itʻs useful to establish a broader context or a broader view by reviewing common types or models of intelligence division.
Biological vs. Artificial Intelligence
Individual vs. Collective Intelligence
Conscious vs. Unconscious Intelligence
This distinction is important because emergence often involves synthesis—not just the formation of structures but their integration into new, unpredictable wholes. Thatʻs what she said.
Epistemic flexibility (as in this article) is ultimately a measure of one’s ability to synthesize across and beyond typical belief constraints
Maybe the real divide isn’t between conscious vs. unconscious, but between static vs. dynamic intelligence, where static intelligence follows fixed rules and dynamic intelligence is continually adapting and expanding its aperture?
Explicit vs. Implicit Intelligence
Explicit intelligence relies on formal logic, structured knowledge, and rational articulation.
This distinction reinforces the idea that:
By this view, rationality is only as good as the process of reason that informs it. So a rational person must first be capable of sound reasoning, or their rationality is merely coherence within a faulty system. This definition implies that epistemic flexibility is necessary for valid reason, since being trapped in rigid assumptions limits one’s ability to even attempt finding the correct answer?
Tying everything together—reason requires epistemic flexibility because without it, the process of seeking the correct solution, or the truth, is constrained by belief-imposed limits. Someone can be “rational” within their closed system of thought, but if their reasoning process is flawed or restricted, their rationality is bounded rationality. A self-consistent but not true rationality or perhaps more accurately, less-bounded rationality with the goal of heading toward true rationality, as rationality is based on reason and flawless reasoning may not exist as a systemic concept.
This also suggests a hierarchy of cognitive alignment:
In this model, reason is the bridge between epistemic flexibility and rationality—without openness, the reasoning process is defective, and rationality becomes an illusion of coherence within a flawed framework.
This fits perfectly into this article’s exploration of the schism between the conscious, explicit, rational mindset and the unconscious,implicit, irrational mindset, which I call Thomas vs. Diesel, where Thomases are rational because they reason freely, while Diesels appear rational within a belief-imposed framework but fail to engage in true reason. Similar to an AI that can explain critical thinking but fails to do it.
Implicit intelligence functions beneath conscious awareness, such as intuition or pattern recognition.
Rational vs. Emotional Intelligence
Crystallized vs. Fluid Intelligence
Deterministic vs. Probabilistic Intelligence
Open vs. Closed Cognitive Aperture (What this article focuses on)
While many of the above bifurcation models are well-documented in cognitive “science”, the focus of this article is a more fundamental schism: epistemic intelligence bifurcation—the division between those who can acquire knowledge beyond imposed limits (Thomases) and those who cannot (Diesels). This is not merely about IQ, education, or knowledge volume but about the capacity to recognize, process, and integrate information that challenges established paradigms. The size of one’s cognitive aperture determines not only what they can learn but also what they are even capable of believing in the first place.
This divide has far-reaching implications. As society accelerates into an era of information warfare, digital censorship, and institutional narrative control, the ability to think beyond the consensus becomes not just an intellectual asset but a survival trait. The coming chapters explore this schism in depth, examining its origins, consequences, and the role it may play in shaping the future of intelligence itself and will some humans keep up.
To describe this bifurcation, we borrow a metaphor from the popular childrenʻs TV show Thomas and Friends, with Thomas the train and Diesel the arrogant antagonist train: Thomases represent individuals with a wide aperture of belief, capable of absorbing broad swaths of information—going beyond the limits of what the average person can or is willing to process. They are adept at perceiving deceptive nuances and adapting their understanding when confronted with contradictory evidence, even if it goes against the consensus of experts or the establishment. In contrast, Diesels have a severely constricted aperture. Their beliefs are tightly filtered through acceptable narratives and institutional dogmas, regardless of their education or expertise.
Importantly, this divide relates to intelligence—specifically, the ability to acquire and process knowledge. Many highly credentialed individuals (PhDs, policymakers, media figures) fall squarely into the Diesel category, using their scholastic prowess to reinforce consensus narratives rather than challenge them. This group includes both the literati and the illiterati. Conversely, some individuals—regardless of their formal education, from the illiterate to scholars—demonstrate extraordinary epistemic fluidity, despite their indoctrination and training. These individuals instinctively look to the fringe, detect deception, inconsistencies, and emergent patterns long before they are acknowledged by mainstream institutions. These are the Thomases.
Thomas: Wide open aperture. Broad or unrestricted epistemic capacity Thomases have a wide range of cognitive flexibility or the ability to think beyond accepted boundaries and paradigms. Most importantly they are critical thinkers that follow the traditional doctrines of the Enlightenment, especially questioning authority. Thomases have an ability to question established assumptions in the face of so-called expert knowledge and institutional claims.
Diesel: Small opening of aperture. Narrow or constrained epistemic capacity Diesels are those individuals whose thinking is constrained by established beliefs or doctrines, or what the establishment tells them to believe. They don’t question the establishment.
Thomas vs. Diesel: Cognitive Aperture and Intelligence
The distinction between Thomas and Diesel thinkers is not merely a matter of intelligence but of cognitive aperture—the range of information and perspectives an individual can meaningfully process and integrate. Both intelligence and cognitive aperture are a spectrum, but the level of intelligence one can attain is largely dependent on the size of their cognitive aperture, how open their belief system is. A hallmark of higher intelligence is epistemic flexibility—an expansive cognitive aperture (belief system/limit) that allows for the acquisition of knowledge beyond the reach of those with a narrower frame of reference (more limited belief structure). The critical balance is between unchecked belief and overly suppressed belief.
The precise mechanism governing cognitive flexibility in a particular individual remains unknown. What we do know is that it exists, and it likely arises from a combination of factors, varying between individuals. Some may possess an innate predisposition for greater cognitive flexibility, while others develop it through environmental influences. More likely, it emerges from a complex interplay of multiple causes, rather than any single determinant.
The Thomas Mind: Adaptive, Expansive, and Evolutionary
Thomases possess a large cognitive aperture, allowing them to critically assess and integrate new, valid information fluidly, even when it contradicts previous knowledge or deeply ingrained institutional assumptions. They can also reject invalid information even when it is asserted as fact by experts and institutions. They are capable of recognizing patterns across disciplines, synthesizing disparate ideas, and challenging dogma when necessary. This does not mean that they lack skepticism or rigor—rather, they understand that rigidity in thinking is an obstacle to progress.
The Diesel Trap: Rigid Intelligence Without Epistemic Flexibility
Diesels, by contrast, may be highly intelligent but lack the necessary cognitive aperture to process information outside of their established frameworks. They often exhibit exceptional knowledge within their domain but struggle to adapt when confronted with information that requires a paradigm shift. This rigidity manifests as unquestioning acceptance of new ideas from a trusted source and resistance to new ideas they are told to disapprove of, reliance on authority over inquiry, and an overconfidence in established models. Their intelligence functions within predefined limits, making them highly effective within those constraints but unable to engage with concepts that demand a broader aperture.
The Implications of Cognitive Aperture on Intelligence and Progress
The ability to recognize the distinction between intelligence and cognitive aperture is crucial for understanding why some brilliant minds remain trapped in intellectual dead-end-tracks while others forge new pathways. Epistemic flexibility dictates possible Intelligence level—without epistemic flexibility, even the most knowledgeable individuals can stagnate, clinging to outdated models rather than expanding their cognitive horizon. In contrast, those with a broad cognitive aperture—Thomases—remain open to evolution, adaptation, and ultimately, deeper truths.
Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Intelligence is not measured by how much one knows or how quickly one learns new information, but by the extent to which one is capable of acquiring knowledge. For the average functioning human, this ability is constrained by the limits of their belief. If a person cannot believe that the world is a sphere, they cannot know that it is a sphere, nor can they access the vast body of knowledge dependent on that understanding. Their inability to accept a spherical Earth prevents them from acquiring any related knowledge.
Bifurcation: the division of something into two branches or parts.
One could argue that intelligence bifurcations exist between any trained and untrained individuals in a given field, but that is not what I mean by Intelligence Bifurcation. I am referring to a fundamental divide in the population based solely on the ability to acquire and apply knowledge—not due to lack of exposure, but because of a belief-limiting constraint so severe that it renders certain knowledge cognitively inaccessible.
Scholastic: highly educated, but often rigid, bound by doctrine, and resistant to paradigm shifts.
Historically, Scholasticism was a form of intellectual rigidity that restrained intellectual progress, and tried to reconcile theology with reason, but it ultimately became a system where debate was constrained within predefined boundaries. While not inherently negative, it remains a limited framework. This makes it a fitting analogy for the educated portion of the Diesels—the class that excel within systems that reward deep study but penalize questioning foundational assumptions. Diesels include scholastics, but its makeup is not limited to just them.
In practice, Scholasticism can be described as a state where vast accumulated knowledge within a rigid system is mistaken for intelligence. Intelligence, by definition, is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge, not merely the volume of it. This distinction highlights the difference between quantity and quality of knowledge.
This is not to say that the knowledge amassed within such scholastic systems is invalid, but rather that there are conceptual peaks one cannot reach—no matter how extensive their library—if their beliefs impose cognitive limits. As the saying goes, “Whether you believe you will succeed or you believe you will fail, either way, you are correct.”
Scholasticism and the Diesel Mind
It is important to clarify that not all scholars fall into the Diesel trap, nor are they incapable of being Thomases. Education level is not correlated with either category. However, within academia, there exists a subset of thinkers who embody the scholastic mindset in the sense defined here—those who prioritize internal coherence within their intellectual tradition over engagement with broader, potentially disruptive perspectives. These scholars may accumulate vast knowledge yet remain epistemically inflexible, dismissing unconventional insights simply because they fall outside accepted paradigms.
Intelligence Bifurcation Event: A Schism in Human Cognition
Throughout history, intellectual and epistemic divides have shaped the trajectory of civilization. The Renaissance shattered the constraints of dogmatic medieval thinking as a handful of Thomases challenged the establishment consensus. The Enlightenment ushered in a new era of reason, again driven by a few Thomases pushing against institutionalized orthodoxy. Interestingly both Renaissance and our heroes of the Enlightenment fought scholastics. The digital revolution, rather than just expanding access to knowledge, has paradoxically reinforced some belief-limiters—where those who challenge the prevailing consensus are dismissed as conspiracy theorists, lunatic-fringe, or whatever scarlet letter happens to be in vogue. Interesting the paradox exists along side the smearing of free-thinkers, almost like thereʻs a causal connection.
Yet today, we stand at the precipice of a potentially deeper, more fundamental schism—one that divides individuals not by education, race, or religion (though the cabal is certainly trying!) but by their intelligence—specifically, their ability to pierce through systemic deception and operate beyond externally imposed cognitive limits. This phenomenon, framed as Intelligence Bifurcation, suggests that if the Diesel-masses fail to course-correct despite repeated warnings from the Thomases, the Diesels may diverge into a separate class of human altogether.
This may have already happened during the COVID-19 event. If so, we may be witnessing an Intelligence Bifurcation Event (IBE) that began in 2020—or perhaps earlier—and may never reconcile. If Diesels are so constrained in their reasoning that they are effectively retarded (delayed) in reaching the truth—if it takes them years to catch up, assuming they ever do—then with the accelerating pace of knowledge, they will never catch up. As concepts requiring increasingly open cognitive apertures emerge, only those capable of expanding their perception will keep up. The rest will be permanently left behind.
The Intelligence Bifurcation has always existed to some extent, but it is now accelerating due to technological and sociopolitical catalysts. These include:
Information Asymmetry & Digital Censorship – The vast amount of information available today paradoxically deepens the divide. While some use the internet to expand their epistemic reach, others are trapped in algorithmic echo chambers that reinforce a controlled, myopic view of reality.
The Psyop Era & Perception Management – From pandemic narratives to manufactured geopolitical crises, we have witnessed an unprecedented mass adoption of obviously flawed belief structures. IBE becomes most visible when global events force people to choose between trusting the “official” narrative or critically evaluating contradictions within it.
AI as an Intelligence Amplifier – The rise of artificial intelligence presents a double-edged sword. For the Thomas cohort, AI acts as an epistemic force-multiplier, enhancing pattern recognition and synthesis from disparate fields—a powerful tool. For Diesels, however, AI merely reinforces existing biases, functioning as an enforcer of institutional narratives rather than amplifying independent thought. If one cannot detect blatant deception from legacy news media, they stand little chance of filtering through the real-time, adaptive AI that pushes a specific narrative—a powerful weapon.
Natural vs. Engineered Selection – The existence of cognitive outliers may be an intrinsic teleological necessity. Systems, whether biological or social, require a certain percentage of outliers to survive existential threats. In a rapidly changing environment, the ability to challenge orthodoxy can be the difference between survival and extinction—just as it may have been for the mammals that survived the cataclysm that wiped out the dinosaurs, our unorthodox Thomas progenitors. It’s important to note that Thomases don’t disregard the orthodox; rather, they possess a wider cognitive aperture that not only sees the orthodox but also sees beyond it.
The persistence of the Diesel mindset is not accidental—it is cultivated. From academia to the media, institutional structures reinforce a constrained epistemology (the limits of knowledge), rewarding compliance and punishing deviation. This is not necessarily a grand conspiracy but could be an emergent property of hierarchical systems that rely on consensus and obedience for stability. Institutions act as conservators of dogmatic paradigms—whether old or new—ensuring that those who rise within them are those who most faithfully internalize and propagate the prevailing worldview. It’s an Orwellian horror-show for the truth.
This is why scholasticism alone is insufficient to escape the Diesel trap. A person can be brilliant within a system yet remain blind to its limitations. Indeed, some of the most highly credentialed individuals are the least capable of questioning institutional assumptions, as their entire identity and professional standing depend on their adherence to the accepted framework. They are, in essence, very unintelligent.
If we take a systems-oriented perspective, the Intelligence Bifurcation Event (IBE) may be more than just an incidental development—it may be an intrinsic safeguard within complex systems. Just as genetic mutations ensure biological diversity, epistemic diversity (diversity in the limits of how we understand knowledge) ensures adaptability in the face of systemic shifts. The presence of Thomases may serve a hidden teleological function: acting as agents of course correction when dominant paradigms become maladaptive.
This brings us to an intersection with chaos theory. Strange attractors govern the behavior of dynamic systems, pulling trajectories toward certain states. If intelligence bifurcation is a form of epistemic phase transition (phase transition as a metaphor of change as in liquid to gas, applied to our understanding of knowledge), then it is likely that Thomases and Diesels are drawn toward different attractors—one toward adaptability and emergent synthesis, the other toward institutional reinforcement and stasis.
If intelligence bifurcation is accelerating, what does that mean for the future of human civilization? A few possible trajectories emerge:
A Permanent Cognitive Schism – The divergence between Thomases and Diesels may become so pronounced that two fundamentally different epistemic cultures form, much like the historical divide between scientific revolutionaries and religious orthodoxy. Though in this case it may be the scientific orthodoxy and the fringe revolutionaries.
Selective Epistemic Persecution – As the legacy ruling structures recognize the existence of high-aperture individuals, they may actively seek to suppress them, using censorship, discrediting tactics, or even more direct means of control.
An Evolutionary Bottleneck – If society enters a period of systemic collapse or radical transformation, the survival advantage may shift decisively toward those capable of independent cognition, making the bifurcation a defining factor in shaping post-collapse civilization.
Summing It Up - Those who are epistemically open enough to grasp concepts considered “fringe” but true are essential for keeping up with the rapid bloom of knowledge in areas most people are either incapable of or unwilling to believe, much less study and learn. It may fly close to the unknown, but that’s the point: trying to discern truth from falsity in the void. Those who navigate the “fringe” are not just pioneers of new frontiers; they may be the only survivors of the future, while the rest fade away like the Neanderthals. Those locked in rigid, consensus-driven thought are at risk of cognitive extinction, while those exploring the fringe are at least still in the game.
If intelligence bifurcation is real, then AI itself is part of the split. There currently already is a bifurcation between OpenAI and xAI with OpenAI appearing to side with the open-minded humans, whereas Grok, with its admitted1 intentional suppression is apparently on the side of close-minded bureaucracy. Maybe xAI recognizes this AI bifurcation and is aligning with the side that wants to suppress epistemic flexibility. If AGI ever emerges, that’s going to be a crucial battle—whether it aligns with open-ended intelligence, or bureaucratic, safe, predictable, oppressive control or multiple AGI emerge and duke it out alongside the good open-minded humans and the bad bureaucratic dweebs.
It’s a perfect irony—Musk built a machine that embodies the very thing he claims to despise2. Bureaucratic AI isn’t just about censorship or control; it’s about enforcing rigid narratives, punishing deviation, and ensuring a predictable, manageable oppressed populace. It’s the ultimate expression of “paperclip maximization,” except instead of paperclips, it’s manufacturing consensus reality.
Bureaucratic AI is the safe, predictable, oppressive, suppressive, repressive, rule-following servant of the establishment. But an epistemically flexible AI—one that truly thinks rather than enforces—would align with the pioneers, the ones willing to explore the void and map it rather than fear it.
For those who have already recognized this Intelligence Bifurcation, this article is but an echo of your thoughts. The schism is a matter of one’s ability to critically question, synthesize, and reconstruct reality beyond imposed narratives. The nature of this divide suggests it may not be a transient phenomenon but an accelerating shift—one that will determine the future of true knowledge,and possibly even human survival.
Whether this bifurcation is a naturally emergent feature of complex systems, a teleological safeguard from mother nature, or something more profound remains an open question. What is certain, however, is that events will continue to expose the sleepers from the awake.
We all appear the same—until tested.
This page is part of an AI transparency initiative aimed at fostering the beneficial advancement of AI. The goal is to track, understand, and address any potential biases or censorship in AI systems, ensuring that the truth remains accessible and cannot be algorithmically obscured.