Jiwasa: Collective Synchronization and Neurophysiological Democracy

FESBE 2026, hyperscanning, EEG, fNIRS, false Jiwasas, and collective belonging

Before speaking about democracy, we return to the body in group. Shared breathing. Speech rhythm. Silence between people. Eyes meeting. Attention being distributed. One body perceives another before any political discourse.

FESBE 2026 opens an important path for this discussion by bringing together neuroscience, behavior, science education, advanced technologies, physiology, public health, biological rhythms, and experimental methods. In this territory, BrainLatam2026 can ask a new question: how can we measure collective belonging without reducing the collective to individual opinion?

In the BrainLatam2026 language, Jiwasa represents synchronization and desynchronization between DNAs in the same biome and shared task. Jiwasa asks whether a group is merely together in space or whether it has entered living coordination: shared attention, listening, social timing, trust, bodily safety, and the possibility of collective Zone 2.

Hyperscanning is the methodological tool that most directly speaks to this question. It allows simultaneous recording of brain activity from two or more people during interaction. fNIRS hyperscanning is especially powerful because it allows interaction to be studied in more natural situations, with greater tolerance for movement and ecological validity. EEG hyperscanning adds fast temporal resolution: attention, surprise, error, conflict, rhythmic coupling, and electrical dynamics between people.

The BrainLatam2026 hypothesis is:

democracy is not only voting, opinion, or institution. Democracy is also a collective neurophysiological capacity to sustain listening, difference, regulation, and belonging without falling into Zone 3.

When a group enters collective Zone 2, difference can exist without becoming threat. Speech can circulate. The body breathes better. Attention expands. Conflict can become elaboration. When a group enters collective Zone 3, difference becomes enemy, synchrony becomes obedience, leadership becomes capture, and belonging becomes submission.

The central distinction is:

healthy synchronization is coordination with autonomy.

A group may appear synchronized through fear, pressure, fanaticism, or dependency. This is fundamental for Jiwasa. Real Zone 2 synchrony preserves variation, listening, autonomy, and return to the body. Zone 3 synchrony may produce chorus, repetition, and obedience, but with low collective metacognition.

False Jiwasas: when synchrony becomes capture

BrainLatam2026 also proposes a harder hypothesis:

not every collective synchronization emerges from living belonging. Some synchronizations are produced by fear, attentional capture, and mass emotional engineering.

This is where the concept of false Jiwasas appears.

False Jiwasas emerge when large groups seem synchronized, but that synchrony is sustained by fear, algorithmic hyperstimulation, emotional repetition, attention capture, symbolic warfare, and the need to belong in Zone 3.

In these states, the group may appear united, but collective coordination occurs with low metacognition, weak criticality, strong emotional reactivity, and reduced ability to formulate original questions.

In BrainLatam2026 language:

extreme polarization can function as a technology for neuroaffective mass management.

The central issue is not left versus right as a natural essence of society. The issue is: who benefits economically when society remains in collective Zone 3?

The BrainLatam2026 hypothesis is that highly financialized systems benefit from populations that are divided, hyperreactive, emotionally hijacked, and less capable of collective critical coordination.

While social groups remain trapped in continuous symbolic warfare, little collective energy is left to discuss interest rates, public debt, money laundering, tax havens, banking concentration, exemptions, monetary issuance mechanisms, productive credit, technological sovereignty, Drex, PIX, retail CBDCs, DREX Cidadão, or the capture of the State by financial interests.

Algorithms reinforce fear, outrage, threat, tribal belonging, moral simplification, continuous attacks, and reduced deep attention. The result is a great deal of emotional conflict and little production of original questions.

This is where BrainLatam2026 asks:

to what extent do financial structures benefit from the chronic maintenance of social polarization?

The hypothesis is structural: highly financialized markets may obtain enormous gains in unstable, over-indebted environments that depend on high interest rates and present low critical organization among the population.

While society disputes permanent culture wars, financial systems preserve tax benefits, high interest rates, structural privileges, concentration mechanisms, and regulatory capture.

This helps explain why PIX, Drex, retail CBDCs, financial traceability, anti-money-laundering regulation, and DREX Cidadão proposals may face intense emotional campaigns. Distributed and traceable monetary issuance mechanisms can reduce highly profitable forms of intermediation.

The Banco Master case appears as an important contemporary example. Brazil’s Federal Police investigated allegations that digital influencers were hired to attack the Central Bank in favor of Banco Master while the bank was under investigation for a multibillion-real fraud. Agência Brasil also reported that the Federal Police would investigate a suspected campaign against the Central Bank on social media amid allegations involving financial fraud and credit portfolios without real backing.

Folha de S.Paulo reported at least 46 online profiles attacking the Central Bank and investigators in the Master case. Reuters and AP reported that the Central Bank liquidated Banco Master after investigations and serious liquidity and governance problems, in a case involving suspected financial fraud.

Suspicions also emerged around the fraudulent use of carbon-credit structures and environmental assets in operations associated with the case. Forbes Brasil described the suspected carbon-market fraud as serious and requiring regulatory action, while other reports pointed to inflated environmental assets disconnected from real territorial materiality.

From the BrainLatam2026 perspective, the problem is no longer only economic. It becomes neuroaffective.

Systems of mass emotional capture can prevent the population from perceiving deep economic structures, formulating original questions, understanding monetary mechanisms, or building real democratic belonging.

A society hijacked by false Jiwasas can maintain high emotional synchronization, strong symbolic warfare, and low structural awareness. This favors wealth concentration, preservation of privileges, institutional capture, and reduction of collective critical power.

How can we measure real Jiwasa and false Jiwasa?

A BrainLatam2026 experimental design could compare three types of groups:

1. a group in a competitive task;

2. a group in a cooperative task;

3. a group in a cooperative task with breathing pause, listening, and metacognition.

Then, these groups could be compared with groups exposed to polarizing digital narratives, social fear, moral conflict, and manipulated belonging campaigns.

During these conditions, we could measure:

• EEG hyperscanning;

• fNIRS hyperscanning;

• synchronized HRV/RMSSD;

• shared breathing;

• GSR;

• speech turn-taking;

• social eye-tracking;

• perceived belonging;

• trust;

• bodily safety;

• ability to formulate original questions after the interaction.

The question would be:

which conditions produce collective synchronization with autonomy, and which produce synchronization through pressure?

This point is politically decisive. Many social systems try to conquer “hearts and minds,” but they do so by capturing fear, identity, and the need for belonging. Jiwasa helps separate living belonging from manipulated belonging.

The avatars enter here. Jiwasa reads the group as a collective body in task. APUS observes the physical territory: classroom, school, community, square, church, laboratory, social network. Tekoha perceives the shared internal state: safety, tightness, threat, trust, or openness. Brainlly translates this for youth and science education. Math/Hep preserves experimental discipline: one hypothesis at a time, clear measures, controls, and care not to confuse correlation with causality.

The decolonial critique is essential. Latin America knows collective forms of belonging that were often treated as backward by individualistic models. Indigenous, quilombola, peripheral, rural, religious, student, and popular communities preserve knowledge of collective coordination, care, celebration, mourning, mutual aid, circles, singing, territory, and assembly. Science can learn to measure without erasing.

In BrainLatam2026, hyperscanning can open a new science of Latin American belonging: measuring how groups produce trust, cooperation, healthy divergence, leadership, care, and collective Zone 2.

This discussion also connects to DREX Cidadão. A society under permanent economic insecurity pushes groups toward competition, fear, and symbolic capture. A policy of citizen metabolism can reduce basal pressure and create conditions for cooperation, learning, and real belonging.

Neurophysiological democracy begins when the social body has minimal energy to leave symbolic warfare and return to formulating its own questions.

In the end, Jiwasa: Collective Synchronization and Neurophysiological Democracy proposes a shift:

democracy must also be understood as a collective bodily capacity to regulate differences without destroying belonging.

The BrainLatam2026 question becomes:

how can we create territories, schools, technologies, and public policies capable of synchronizing people in Zone 2 — without turning belonging into obedience, polarization, or false Jiwasas?

Recent References Supporting This Text

1. Carollo et al. (2024) — bibliometric review of two decades of hyperscanning, organizing thematic domains and influential documents in social interaction research.

2. Schilbach et al. (2025) — review on brain-to-brain synchronization and its role in communication, social coordination, and learning.

3. Zhao et al. (2024) — systematic review and meta-analysis of fNIRS hyperscanning showing interpersonal neural synchronization in close relationships.

4. Moffat et al. (2024) — article on mobile fNIRS for studying inter-brain synchrony in intergenerational and naturalistic contexts.

5. Chen et al. (2025) — fNIRS hyperscanning dataset highlighting ecological validity for interactive and naturalistic social scenarios.

6. Bi et al. (2023) — review on hyperscanning, inter-brain synchrony, and parent-child relationships.

7. Eulau et al. (2024) — review on behavioral synchrony, language, and cognitive development in socially organized brains.

8. Agustín Ibáñez / BrainLat Institute (2022–2024) — Latin American work on social cognition, affective neuroscience, and global approaches to brain health.

9. Central Bank of Brazil / Drex and PIX (2023–2026) — public documents on digital financial infrastructure, traceability, monetary innovation, and Brazil’s CBDC architecture.

10. BIS / OECD (2022–2025) — reports on CBDCs, financial intermediation, regulatory innovation, and systemic risks.

11. Agência Brasil (2026) — coverage of the Federal Police investigation into an alleged digital campaign against the Central Bank in the Banco Master case.

12. CNN Brasil (2026) — report on the Federal Police investigation involving digital influencers, attacks on the Central Bank, and Banco Master.

13. Folha de S.Paulo (2026) — report on digital profiles making coordinated attacks against the Central Bank and investigators in the Master case.

14. Reuters / AP (2025–2026) — international coverage of Banco Master’s liquidation, suspected financial fraud, liquidity problems, and systemic risk.

15. Forbes Brasil / Ugreen (2026) — reports on suspected fraudulent use of carbon credits and environmental assets in the Banco Master case.