Those who are smart will get vaccinated. That's what two studies suggest based on correlations found between IQ and vaccination readiness. In three paragraphs, I outline my interpretation of this finding. The rest of the article (under "Elaboration") is for the enthusiast. There is plenty to say about the methodology of the studies, the method of intelligence determination and the context of the populations looked at. This article isn't about that. We accept the findings and explain the mechanism.
Nevertheless, it has become a long piece so I'll summarize in the three promised paragraphs:
For people with a higher IQ, the media serves as a source of information. They look for reliable information there. They watch reliable programs and listen to the statements of the top experts. As theoretically trained students, they know the value of information, process it and apply it. Their colleagues and superiors consume the same package of information and rely on the system that has put them in the privileged positions they find themselves in as highly educated. For example, this group was exposed to information for a year that was intended to promote vaccination readiness.
The group with lower IQs missed all this information. They watch VI and Temptation Island and, lower down the social ladder, are less fond of muckety mucks anyway. Promises that seem too good to be true, such as a miracle vaccine that just falls from the sky, they view with obvious suspicion.
A higher level of intelligence is thus associated with different media selection and consumption. Viewing and reading behavior determines the nature of information, and great importance is also attached to that carefully selected information. Thus, a higher willingness to vaccinate among people with higher IQs may indicate a higher susceptibility to media manipulation.The small group of doctors (PhDs) among the higher educated behaves differently: they do not get vaccinated as much. See a later article, including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
(the links below the screenshots lead to the studies)
The studies boil down to this: Smart people are getting vaccinated more. Less smart people cannot properly assess the importance of vaccinations. See two quotes from the studies:
- "The results suggest that the complexity of the vaccination decision may make it difficult for people with lower cognitive abilities to understand the benefits of vaccination."
- "Despite a wide range of vaccination stimulants available during the study period, higher intelligence was the strongest predictor of vaccine readiness."
Clear, right? Not vaccinating is stupid.
A correlation does not necessarily indicate a direct causal relationship. Two synchronous phenomena can have a common cause. So it is not the case that one phenomenon leads to the other1A classic example is the difference between IQ and shoe size. The cognitive abilities of a child are obviously lower than those of an adult and that correlates with the shoe size. However, a larger shoe size does not cause a higher IQ nor vice versa. There is a confounder, an underlying cause that, on average, results in both larger feet and a higher IQ. Finding such connections is sometimes difficult. It is based on conjecture and making up alternative possible causes that are not in the scope., including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
Would there also be such an indirect link between IQ and vaccination readiness?
We need to generalize for a moment. Intelligent, highly educated, developed cognitive abilities, towards the top of the social ladder: we cluster it in the group "Higher IQ". Of course, that group differs from the "Lower IQ" group not only in intelligence. They have a different lifestyle, live differently, drive different cars, watch different TV shows, have more or fewer children, have different holidays, eat differently etc. etc. Is there perhaps a causal link with vaccination readiness in one of these differences?
In any case, a higher IQ has to do with thinking. In the brain, information is handled differently. Someone can absorb, remember, process and internalize not only more but also more complex information, so that new applicable knowledge is built up with that information.
Higher (or better: theoretically) educated people have learned that they can cash in on their knowledge with diplomas and progress up the career ladder. That they collect arguments with information, which is important in a knowledge society. For them, knowledge is really a thing. It is essential to listen carefully to experts and to hear what they have to say.
If you yourself are a specialist in one field, you're more willing to respect the expertise of a specialist with a different expertise, just as you want your "expert opinion" to be valued. And if you want to move up in a hierarchy, don't be a PITA by questioning the knowledge of your superiors. It's better to give a widely respected expert a compliment than to correct him or her repeatedly, especially publicly. That is career suicide. More docile characters will overtake you. So adaptability, getting along with the environment, is also a factor.
I asked ChatGPT for examples of TV shows that are specifically popular with one of these two groups: higher and lower IQ.
- Op1 – A talk show with current news, political issues and social themes to culture and entertainment.
- Buitenhof – A weekly discussion program about politics and current affairs.
- Tegenlicht – An in-depth research programme of the VPRO on current themes.
- GTST (Good Times, Bad Times) – The longest running Dutch soap opera.
- Temptation Island – a reality TV show in which several couples are taken to a tropical island to put their relationships to the test.
- I love Holland – An entertainment program with games and humor about Dutch culture and current affairs.
Newspapers/magazines: NRC Handelsblad, De Volkskrant, De Groene Amsterdammer and on the other hand De Telegraaf, Privé and Weekend.
Let's try not to fall into value judgments. The distinction between cognitive and social/relational interests is clear.
GTST, Temptation Island and Ik hou van Holland are not the programs you go to watch to form an opinion on current issues, such as (at the time) to vaccinate or not to vaccinate. The lower educated sat and amused themselves night after night, while the higher educated sucked up the information handed to them in the daily Op1 alkshow. After all, that's where the experts were, like Ab Osterhaus and that Pfizer captain. Karoly Illy, Marc Bonten, Marjolein van Egmond, Ab Osterhaus, Marion Koopmans, Roland Pierik, politicians - which vaccine promoter didn't sit there. And remember: these are really experts, otherwise they would not be invited to Op1, because that is very reliable and high quality prrogram. Did I mention Ab Osterhaus? Anyway, that flood of information sets the mind. Moreover, all those scholars were in full agreement: consensus.
It's the same with newspapers. De Volkskrant has a dedicated corona reporter, Maarten Keulemans. One of his headlines speaks for itself: "Corona vaccines worked even better than expected". What does that do to the Volkskrant-reading intelligentsia?
In regards to jabbing and reflection, the Telegraaf has to rely mainly on columnists. Leon de Winter: "It's hard to find a circumstance [for the excess mortality] other than, I have to put it bluntly, vaccination. It couldn't have been anything else.". That's a whole different sound.
Marianne Zwagerman, in her mid-2021 column in De Telegraaf: "Even a journalistic television program like Nieuwsuur treats compulsory vaccination as a serious topic to be discussed, where of course mainly the proponents get the floor very extensively to defend the government line. While the very Nieuwsuur editors know better than anyone else how corona policy is being rammed down our throats with lies and secrets. Nieuwsuur was vindicated by the judge that Hugo de Jonge must release the documents about the corona crisis - a FOIA request by Nieuwsuur - but the minister refuses and is appealing, incurring costs for the program, paid by taxpayers money."
That's a whole different story. Vaccination gets indirectly associated with lies and secrets. In any case, the Telegraaf reader was not lulled to sleep.
It is no secret that the state media have enthusiastically propagated the government narrative, especially the 'quality media' such as NRC, Volkskrant, Op1.2For that reason I no longer watch TV and I canceled my subscriptions to VK, NRC and AD (yes, all three of them, I was under the delusion that I was informing myself in a versatile way).
Is MSM information really that colored?
Frequent readers of this blog know that a lot of information from the legacy media is indeed incorrect or incomplete, as evidenced by some debunks of MSM articles from AD, NRC, UK and TV clips.
A prime example of MSM disinformation concerns the Pfizer contracts the EU entered into on behalf of the member states (did we actually know about them at the time? What did they say?). I wrote an article about that the day before yesterday that has now been read 14,000 times. That's an extraordinary amount for this blog, even more than my debunk of Ruben van Gaalen, an older 'hit'3In the article about the Pfizer contracts, I outline my dismay at the fact that the EU has signed up to inject the entire European population with a drug of which they contractually confirmed that effects and side effects were unknown. No one knew how common and how severe those side effects would be. But no matter how serious, the pharmaceutical companies could not be blamed. No claims, no responsibility, nothing. Now I had heard that the pharmaceutical companies were indemnified against any claim for damages, but you hear so much. However, the fact that this was clearly stated in black and white and that the contract was actually signed by someone on behalf of all the Member States of the EU, that made my shoes fall off., including the text of this article, also as a Dutch version.
From the reactions to that article it became clear to me that that contract between Pfizer and the EU has been online since 17 April 2021, on the website of the Italian broadcaster RAI. Publicly available for more than two years! The EU explicitly confirms in that contract that they signed up to a billion-dollar order for injections for which nothing was known about the side effects or long-term effectiveness.
Had we had critical journalism, or an investigative editorial staff, or a high-level science reporter somewhere, all the newspapers would have jumped on top of this. But what, for example, did the quality newspaper par excellence, NRC, report on this contract?
Attention is diverted with a message about the price, as if that were the most important fact. The link in the article refers to La Vanguardia, the Spanish newspaper that was in possession of a black lacquered version. Four days earlier, however, the complete version was already at RAI. Had the top notch journalists of this quality newspaper missed that...?
Meanwhile the Volkskrant cheered that the vaccines came earlier than expected:
This is exemplary for the provision of information to the intelligentsia, the newspaper readers who partly get their knowledge from the newspaper, who have confidence in the quality media. All their colleagues and superiors also read the NRC so they agree on the quality.
Low-skilled (better: practically trained) wappies, on the other hand, do not read NRC. They may be looking for other sources such as blckbx, Common Sense or The Other Newspaper or have simply maintained their healthy suspicion of a miracle vaccine that suddenly comes out of the blue.
It is therefore expected that the group of media consumers with a higher IQ also has a higher willingness to vaccinate than the group that has not been subjected to this incessant, long-term, media-intensive brainwashing. It would be inexplicable if it were the other way around, given the nature of the information and the conviction among the theoretically trained that the veracity of that information need not be questioned.
Another example: acceptance of lableak theory
Experts and therefore also the 'quality media' still insist that the virus did not originate from the Wuhan lab. "Highly unlikely" is the consensus. Everyone knows better, including the authors who fooled us with the piece that was used as evidence for that denial.
The media paints a parallel reality. This is also reflected in the lableak belief by level of education and that pattern corresponds to media consumption.
(thanks to Maurice de Hond for making the data available, a measurement from 16-6-2023.)
Imaginary research proposal
Unfeasible, I know, but still.
Let's say you do an RCT: You let the most intelligent half of your subjects watch vaccine propaganda night after night for a year in programs they rate as trustworthy. The other half is not allowed to do that, they are obliged to watch fun entertaining nothing-to-happen TV.
The vaccine-brainwash group lauds the words of experts, after all, that's how their context is. The other group does not feel they are missing anything. They see some things about vaccines on the news and RTL News (there's no escaping that), but in the Telegraaf they come across critical notes every now and then. And at work there is little respect for stuck-up muckety mucks anyway.
In which group would the willingness to vaccinate be highest after that year?
It's not a smarter decision to get vaccinated. Rather, the correlation between IQ and vaccine readiness indicates that intellectuals are more susceptible to media manipulation because of:
- trust in the knowledge system they are part of
- exposure to persistent and intrusive pro-vaccination information
- sensitivity to expert statements
The intelligentsia are more expertly massaged than the groups that were "harder to reach." They should be more aware of this vulnerability. So if there is a commotion about the fact that smart people opt for vaccination, then you know why, according to virusvaria. Because nothing has been proven, but hopefully made plausible.
See also the sequel article https://virusvaria.nl/hoger-opgeleiden-meer-geprikt-gepromoveerden-juist-minder/
- 1A classic example is the difference between IQ and shoe size. The cognitive abilities of a child are obviously lower than those of an adult and that correlates with the shoe size. However, a larger shoe size does not cause a higher IQ nor vice versa. There is a confounder, an underlying cause that, on average, results in both larger feet and a higher IQ. Finding such connections is sometimes difficult. It is based on conjecture and making up alternative possible causes that are not in the scope.
- 2For that reason I no longer watch TV and I canceled my subscriptions to VK, NRC and AD (yes, all three of them, I was under the delusion that I was informing myself in a versatile way).
- 3In the article about the Pfizer contracts, I outline my dismay at the fact that the EU has signed up to inject the entire European population with a drug of which they contractually confirmed that effects and side effects were unknown. No one knew how common and how severe those side effects would be. But no matter how serious, the pharmaceutical companies could not be blamed. No claims, no responsibility, nothing. Now I had heard that the pharmaceutical companies were indemnified against any claim for damages, but you hear so much. However, the fact that this was clearly stated in black and white and that the contract was actually signed by someone on behalf of all the Member States of the EU, that made my shoes fall off.