We've had 18 months of 24/7 fear programming. Some people are more resistant to it than others, and it really has little to do with intelligence, education, station in life, political leaning, childhood, etc. Some people (maybe half?) live their lives just going through the motions in their comfort bubble, and any hint of an outside unknown danger makes them lock up. These people mentally freeze after months of continuous fear barrage, and their default setting is "do what you're told".
This trait is just the same in trailer park Michelle as it is in Dr. McFocknutz, CEO of Whatever Inc.
The question is: what is "intelligence" and how do we measure it? By being able to memorize what has been told to us and regurgitate it on a test? I don't remember what it was called, but I took an extended aptitude test while in the Army (not the ASVAB, which was before joining). This "extended aptitude" test broke down areas where you had a natural aptitude for learning and included a hub-and-spoke type graph showing where you were strong and where you were weak. A "true genius" was someone who scored over a certain threshold on all of the spokes. I scored extremely high in math, pattern recognition and science; I scored poorest in human interaction and administration.
The point is someone can be highly intelligent in one area and "dumb as rocks" in another. However, everyone that attended "normal" public schools has been programmed that "intelligence" is the ability to memorize and regurgitate information; people that can do that are considered "smart." In reality, how smart are they; do they think critically? Can they come up with something on their own, (e.g. read facts and come to their own conclusion) or can they only parrot what has been told to them? It used to be that a "higher education" focused on teaching HOW to think, rather than WHAT to think; now most Colleges and Universities have decided what IS and therefore only teach WHAT to think; we've become dumber as a society because of it, all while patting ourselves on the back for being "more intelligent" than our predecessors.
I myself consider myself a "victim" of this kind of "education"; luckily, while I do read a lot (or maybe because I do read a lot), I don't just take what is given but cross apply it to gain a better understanding of whatever it is that I am learning and reach conclusions that were not presented in any of the books from which the original information came.
One such example that comes to mind is that NLP books teach a concept called "Meta Programs". Each of these "programs" have a counterpart (usually just one, sometimes two); I've talked about the "Away From" people and the "Towards" people here before: are you trying to
Quit Smoking (away from) or are you trying to
Live Healthier (toward). Relevant to this discussion, however is another Meta Program pair: Internal Reference vs External Reference.
Someone who uses an Internal Reference doesn't care what others think, has more self-confidence, and doesn't seek approval or compliments from others. Someone who uses an External Reference, does the opposite. As an example: imagine someone writing an email that is going out to the whole company does that person "send it" without having someone else read it or do they first run it past their boss or trusted coworker to make sure it "looks and sound good"? Of course whether you are using Internal or External depends on the context; you have a certain level of expertise in whatever job you do and you do most of your daily activities with an Internal Reference (e.g. you know you're doing it "right" and don't need to confirm with anyone else). However, lets say your refrigerator breaks down and it's time to buy a new one, do you just go down to the store and buy one, or do you do a little research first, maybe read some reviews? Well if you are the type to read reviews then that is an External Reference (and it is perfectly fine in this instance as you don't buy refrigerators often).
In our Western Culture, people are trained from an early age to use an External Reference on almost
everything. "What grade did you get on your math paper Johnny?" As a computer programmer, my colleagues are often concerned with are we using "best practices." As you think about your own lives and the things you do on a daily basis, you'll begin to realize just how much we depend on External Reference. Even if you "know what you are doing" on a daily basis on your job, do you still find that you desire to be told that you're doing a good job by your boss or co-workers?
Another thing to consider is that you will change which you are using (Internal vs External) based on your experience and skill level. As an apprentice, you would "check in" with your mentor often to make sure you were doing something "right". As a Journeyman you would check in a lot less often (e.g. for something you haven't done before). As a Master you don't check with anyone else at all.
Off the job, however, people will default to one or the other. Now, there are people that truly, for the vast majority of the time, do not seek any kind of "approval" from anyone else (Internal Validator). Myself, I am a recovering External Validator; I used to be so concerned with what other people thought of me, that even driving down the highway I was worried about what the guy in the car behind me thought of the way I was driving!
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are running the vast majority of the time in an External Validator mode. They don't know what to think unless someone tells them what to think first. It's not just that they get their information from the mainstream media, they literally would have no idea anymore of what to do with facts if that is all they were presented with by the media; they would be unable to form their own opinion. Most of us here likely wish the media would give us just the facts without the opinion (propaganda) but these media companies serve the masses, not the outliers.
There is another personality trait that comes to mind that also would reject the "opinions" of the main stream, but for a different reason than the Internal Validators. The term is "Reverse Polarity" and I would bet that there are more here that fit that mold than there are Internal Validators. A Reverse Polarity personality is the kind of person that if they are told they aren't "capable" of doing something, will go out and do it, just to prove that they can. If they are told that a product isn't a "good fit" for them, then they want it all that much more. I say that there are probably a lot here because this is the kind of personality trait it takes to look at a waterfall and say "I can climb that in my crawler."
It's this personality trait (and again it can be different depending on the context), that the more the mainstream and corrupt.gov tries to push a vaccine on, the more they want
nothing to do with the vax. If you couple an Internal Validator and Reverse Polarity and you've got someone who will fight to the death to prevent being vaxxed against their will.
The bottom line is, most people have been programmed to be External Validators, to conform and to receive their opinions from the "Hive" (a.k.a. Mainstream Media). AND they have been programed to believe that doing so makes them "smarter."
Because you know they'll be trying that here too.
