On head girls, genius boys, and the mRNAs
Why consensus can be so dangerous for science - and for the modern societies that depend on it
[This explains succinctly why the middle fell for it but some of us saw through the hoax almost immediately and resisted but most did not]
What the study really explains, Eugyppius argues, is why near-compulsory mRNA jabs became national policy in wealthy democracies. In those countries, this smart-not-smartest group dominates politics and most businesses (if not startups).
He draws on a 1985 paper called “Intelligence and personal influence in groups” to argue that the most intelligent people cannot argue down persuasively and so have limited influence.
Instead, people who are somewhat smarter than average, with an IQ of about 120 (I’d go slightly higher, to 125-130), dominate debate. They can understand - if not formulate - somewhat complicated ideas and still argue them in ways less intelligent people can follow. The smart-not-brilliant range also contains enough people to form powerful and reinforcing social networks. The very top definitionally does not.
As Eugyppius writes:
Ours is therefore an IQ 120 midwit society; it could not be any other way… since our midwit rulers are cognitively better endowed than probably 90% of the whole population, it’s easy for them to overlook the rare 10% of people who are smarter than they are. Accordingly, they throw all of their opponents into the same basket of intellectual deplorables…
The ideas which dominate our world are… those ideas which appeal to people whose intelligence is above average if less-than-phenomenal, and whose other personality traits optimise their institutional influence. They have the brains of upper middle-class professionals, and they’re also much more extroverted, conscientious and conformist than the broader population...
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/on-head-girls-genius-boys-and-the
Berta Dad nailed it. Copied from FB.
Jeff Rath’s behaviour toward Danielle Smith is not a good look for this movement, and he does not speak for me.
When this started, I had respect for him. But as this has played out, it has become harder to ignore what appears to be a push for power inside the movement, not a sincere focus on Alberta independence.
Danielle Smith is a major reason Albertans were even able to collect signatures in the first place. Compared to any other premier in this country, I believe she has been the strongest one standing up for her province.
I will not forget her accomplishments.
She stood up for parental rights when others wanted schools keeping parents in the dark.
She took action against political ideology being pushed in classrooms.
She made sure kids got back to school when the system tried to hold families hostage.
She has strengthened Alberta Sheriffs and continued exploring ways to free Alberta from relying on the RCMP.
And that is only part of it.
This ...
Listening to Ganum today on the meeting that Premier Smith is having with Lukasek I am wondering why not just have his referendum on the vote in October? If enough say no to his question isn't it the same as a referendum that the other side wants? I for one want this to wake up the East and don't care how it happens. Another caller said she needs to call an provincial election in October and take the rest of questions off the ballot - this could be risky but I am leaning toward it as terrified that the NDP will get in again and right now Nemshi is their handicap IMHO.
