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.
Elaboration
The studies
Cognitive skills, health policy and the dynamics of COVID-19 vaccination
(the links below the screenshots lead to the studies)
Interpretations
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.
Confounding
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.
Media profiles
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?
Top-shelf gaslighting
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.
(Maurice made a presentation about. Jan Bonte made mincemeat of the 'consensus' by Maarten Keulemans)
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?
Conclusion
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/
References
- 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.
Higher educated people are often brainwashed for years by the institutes where they were trained. They often live in a kind of scientific utopia and believe in the goodness of science. Science has become a kind of religion in which being critical is tantamount to blasphemy. However, practice shows that the world is very different. In fact, everything revolves around power, status and money resulting in corruption. The so-called "lower educated" have to fight harder to keep their heads above water and experience the harsh reality on a daily basis. They have simply developed a healthy distrust based on reality and do not allow themselves to be ignored. I think that's the explanation for the fact that lower educated people have been vaccinated less. In my opinion, the latter group is therefore a lot smarter than the science swappies.
Thank you for your valuable addition. I think you're absolutely right and I'm glad you're sharing this here. I feel the same way, but my opinion is just an opinion, I don't think that's enough for an article. I'm not even an expert by experience. More of these comments please!
"And if you want to move up a hierarchy, don't be a querulant by questioning the knowledge of your superiors."
I think this is Cause #1, more than the daily brainwashing sessions by the state media.
Because that's what I looked at (with two academic titles – including one in an exact subject – also 'highly educated') in the beginning. Only I didn't take it for granted, but gradually became more and more annoyed by it, to the point where I am now: I hardly watch regular TV anymore and the almost 30-year subscription to the NRC has been canceled.
So I am clearly such a querulant, that is also evident from the course of my 'career'. 😉
Great, yes, I see it that way too. What I also replied to Lars applies to this. I have also had interactions where I got the lid on my nose, while it was agreed in advance to have an open conversation. But I can't hang an article on that. It was also in a different, commercial hierarchy. The same laws apply there, but yes, that is their own money and has nothing to do with national policy or abuse of power. The customer is always right so I just misjudged that in my inexperience with the higher-ups. I make different demands of people who defend themselves in the interests of the country and of our money. Then I am the customer, only they have forgotten that.
My iq was once tested at 146 (not to brag) and I haven't been vaccinated.
I think that a higher IQ mainly causes you to be higher educated and therefore more likely to have been taught the (blind) science belief.
Without taking into account the reality of bought science, corruption and influencing people.
My academic experience is that you really have to fall in line there because you are worked out differently. Try asking the prof's info, if only for your own understanding. Are there only a few on each course who can have that.
So I agree 100% with the comments of Lars and Eef.
Beautiful. Broad awareness of this vulnerability among the intelligentsia could make a difference. Media are missing out on their crucial role here. See climate, similar processes are at play there.
With such an IQ it will be difficult not to look at society despondent or sympathetic. Strength with that and thanks for your response, if only because of the implicit compliment that smart people also read my blogs. 😜
The authors of the studies look no further than that their noses are long. They focus entirely on the Western world where the smart ones have all been vaccinated. But what about a country like Bulgaria, for example? Only about 30% have had their jabs. Are those Bulgarians all that stupid? No way, I lived there for six years and my wife is Bulgarian and also university educated. My experience is that those Bulgarians are generally pretty smart. However, these people are not easily fooled. Not because they are smart or stupid, but because this people has been bombarded with lies and propaganda for some 70 years. They see much faster than the West that they are constantly being deceived. And what is the consequence? No excess mortality for quite some time. Those slimbos in the West can't say that. But you don't hear them talk about that, of course. That's how smart they are.
Another nice substantiation, provided that data can be found. History as a predictor of intellectual naivety. Are there propagandistic media there, for example? Or does it stop there already? I believe we saw earlier that the judiciary functions more independently. I didn't follow all that very closely.
It may not be a real RCT, because there may be more differences, but of course there are plenty of highly educated people who only use the TV for movies or a few series and who have not had a newspaper for a long time. My girlfriend and I are one of them. We also know a lot of them. An easy study would be to compare the vaccination rate in that group with the group that does watch TV and has a newspaper subscription.
I think your statement is largely correct. Also in the no-TV group we have acquaintances who have been vaccinated, but the unvaccinated are actually only in that group of people who also do not watch TV and do not have a newspaper subscription.
A reassuring thought is that excess mortality mainly concerns vaccinated people, which means that the media audience for the highly educated is rapidly declining, which also reduces the spread of politically correct mis- and disinformation.
Also a reassuring thought is that many people have put the TV and newspaper outside and prefer to receive information via alternative channels such as BlackBox, Café Weltscherz, De Andere Krant, Opiniez, Voorwaarheid, Ongehoord Nieuws, Indepen, Interessante Tijden, Climategate, De Nieuwe Wereld, De Blauwe Tijger, Wynia's Week, Dwarsnieuws, Maurice de Hond and of course VirusVaria.
But perhaps the best prospect is that the EU will protect citizens from mis- and disinformation with the newly enacted Digital Service Act. I therefore expect a barrage of objections from citizens (there are more of us) against the deluge of mis- and disinformation that comes from our governments, MSM, science, education and health care institutions. But also from international institutions such as the UN, WHO and EU.
It is often that people who do a profession with their hands (and possibly are less educated) think more logically. They stand with hands and feet in reality while higher educated people are more likely to be above it.
Higher educated people also tend to belong to tribes. They then stop thinking and mercilessly follow opinions at work and private life because they will know because they are highly educated.
You often see this phenomenon in doctors who do not actually look at the patient but the symptoms, then the cause is not addressed.
The wappies as they are portrayed nowadays are, in my opinion, people who still think for themselves and despite the fact that they may have lower IQ, they are much smarter and know how to be independent and take their own responsibility.
Also not to forget, the so-called "U" curve that was in the news in 2021:
"The association between hesitancy and education level followed a U-shaped curve".
Those with a PhD were the most hesitant. But the most in line were those with a Master's degree (so not exactly a U curve).
– https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260731
The image that the "stupid" and the very smartest (but not the intelligent middle class) opposed the propaganda also fits well with my experience.
That's exactly right. For the still generic approach in this article, that doesn't matter. That group is far too small to affect the overall picture.
Is it correct to report that there is a link between IQ and vaccination readiness? Rather, I read a connection between where you stand on the social ladder and vaccination readiness. The more one is lifestyle and career dependent on moving along, the higher the willingness.
I think a higher IQ can allow someone to be critical, to poke through the propaganda. A growing distrust in the government also plays a role in the willingness to get vaccinated, which may play a role more among the practically educated in society.
See also my reply to Bob. That it is possible according to you and what I myself previously thought, does not turn out that way, that is precisely what the article is about.
There is also a contradiction in what you say. The behaviour of the government, with a succession of broken promises, disastrous mistakes, panic interventions, secret agreements, incompetent ministers, disinformation to lies, has aroused distrust among the sensible part of the population.
According to you, that should be the people with a higher IQ, while you actually assume/perceive that distrust ('according to me' – perhaps you could substantiate that a bit better) among the practically educated. That doesn't make sense, unless you think that the government has acted with integrity and exemplary in recent years, putting aside all 'affairs' and curfews.
We disagree on that, that's fine too.
A higher IQ can certainly allow people to be critical and poke through propaganda; That's probably true for many readers and commentators here. And practically educated people need to have more of their intuition, which may help to simply look past nice talk and pay attention to other things.
The problem is the large intelligent middle group; There are many who use their intelligence to suck up propaganda. Based on my experience with the pandemic, I looked for followers of dangerous cults like Jim Jones to be much more educated; That appears to be the case. And relatively few low-educated people. Following the scientists quoted earlier, we can propose that lower educated people automatically enroll in new sects, in order to offer them the same social opportunities.
Brilliant Harald 😀
I don't think it has much to do with higher IQ. I have a high IQ myself, but I really don't fall for the lies of the media and government.
There's a lot more going on. A high IQ is not synonymous with higher education. Most higher educated people who come from universities have been brainwashed for years. The left hemisphere (ratio) is the only thing that matters in a university. The use of the right hemisphere (creativity, intuition, feeling) is systematically rammed out of it. These people no longer possess anything like common sense.
I don't call that intelligent, but intellectual. For me, intelligent is if you use both hemispheres optimally and don't just rely on the ratio.
I've met a lot of intelligent people in the past year who weren't educated and who I really thought were a lot smarter than all those hotshots with I don't know how many titles before (or behind) their names. At work, unfortunately, I am also among those kinds of figures (ir, ing, mr, dr.) who can no longer think outside the box, but are stuck in their own thinking that they have formed about what is true and what is not. If you come up with counterarguments, they have stepped on their toes, because only they know it.
Fortunately, there are still plenty of highly educated people who really see how things work. Higher IQ, more vaccination readiness, is indeed generalization, as the author of this piece also states.
IQ is a term to which everything is wrongly linked anyway. I know suckers with a huge IQ. But to make it not too complicated, I took IQ instead of "cognitive abilities" or "cognitive profile" or "intellectual" or whatever nuances you could bring.
It is just an umbrella term to distinguish between knowledge workers, people who are or are not used and/or trained to work with information and therefore also have the cognitive capacity to do so to a marketable extent, and the group for whom the acquisition and invention of knowledge is of secondary importance.
Some people have an intuition that leads to better decisions than that of someone with five libraries in their head. "IQ" here is just a categorization to get a mechanism clear, it's not a value judgment. I notice that quite a few people are on the defensive. You don't have to, whether you think you belong to one group or another, even if you have exceptions.
Highly educated people are not sufficiently aware of an Achilles heel: their receptivity to information, especially if it comes from reliable authorities. That is the key message as far as I am concerned.
My grandfather used to say "never trust the Government". On May 9, 1940, it was announced on the radio that everything was under control and that the Netherlands could sleep peacefully. That night, Germany attacked. He drove to the bank the next morning and emptied his safe. At 10 o'clock, the radio announced that the Banks had to close the vaults. On 15 May, the Netherlands surrendered and on 16 May, the Germans emptied the vaults.
On May 13, the Royal family and the Government had already left for England. They should never have come back.
From the beginning, I was skeptical about vaccination. Simply because it normally takes about 10 years for a vaccine to be developed. The covid vaccine was ready in no time. That didn't seem logical to me. Am I that stupid or are the higher educated so smart? Neither appears given the many (deadly) side effects.
Something imposed with such absurdity and aggressiveness, without any empirical evidence, can only contain red flags. And when you investigate, you only see that suspicion more confirmed instead of debunked. I do not know of any incident in history where such psychological warfare has required the public to take a particular medicine, except in times of war. You do not have to know about diseases, medication or medical treatments to understand that there are completely different intentions behind this. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with IQ or intelligence, but purely with healthy suspicion. Doubt everything. Cogito Ergo Sum.
When I look at the Snappies around me, I come to the following conclusion.
She/he:
1. has been a rebel from an early age, did not want to run with the mob, was an exception.
And/or:
2. has a very great sense of justice.
and/or
3. has been tricked at least once by the government/judiciary.
And/or:
4. is able to have a helicopter view of business.
Often at least two of the above apply.
Curious what you think of this!
Nice checklist!
It strikes me in particular that my very highly educated friends and family members have become so frightened by the continuous flow of disinformation and misinformation that they can no longer or do not want to think logically themselves. For a large part of it, even the memory deteriorated visibly after the shots. Most also don't want to face the truth because they want to have a foothold. If you ask: How is it possible that at the end of 2021, when 85 percent of the Dutch adult population was vaccinated, at least sixty percent received omikron in the first six months of 2022? (With a total of 55-60 percent infections over 2020 and 2021, this means four times more infections in the first half of 2022 per month). Yet they usually still think that shots stop many infections and therefore the qrcode was effective.
The same applies to excess mortality.
Recently there was a study that 'proved' that lockdowns have caused little or no more metastatic cancer in the long term, let alone death. "You see," they say.
They forget that they themselves recently claimed that the excess mortality from 2022 was not (partly) due to the shots, but that delayed care was the main culprit. So they have a 'frozen' iq where only info is processed that fits their one-sided knowledge and thinking to camouflage and whitewash them. They forget the rest. Always doubting, flexible thinking, being unbiased open to other arguments and a good memory are apparently parts of the intelligence that are not or far too little included in the IQ / are valued.
Prior to the pandemic, an unconditional belief in the medical world and its products was widespread in all walks of life. Vaccines also had an untouchable status. That is why I think it was the drastic measures that aroused suspicion, especially among practically trained people. Because they restricted them the most in the exercise of their profession (their livelihood). Now more receptive to criticism, they turned to alternative news sources. Where they came into contact with information about all the social engineering techniques and the risks of the vaccines that were coming. It made a difference that they were not hindered by a limiting frame of mind that you usually have left over from a theoretical (academic) education.
Theoretically educated people did not so quickly experience a need to look for critical voices. Because for them, the measures had much less financial impact. Moreover, they are highly dependent on the system for their status and income. Not attractive. The equalization of institutions such as government, journalism and science under the influence of industry has been the big pitfall for them, it seems to me.
People who are not mentally and emotionally dependent on the system and rely primarily on themselves are best immune to guiding signals from the institutions. In any case, they do not blindly follow the group or an authority outside them. This is fairly independent of the level of education.
I can't take this kind of research seriously, it also exudes quite a bit of dedain.
The majority of higher educated people have not followed a science study (only 1 in 5), of which only a very small proportion really have a relevant background, have studied the subject matter and experience or knowledge of how the pharmaceutical industry operates. So in the end, only a very limited number of people among these higher educated people are capable of making the right assessment. In addition, people working in healthcare, government and large companies had to deal with enormous peer pressure.
So let's not pretend that IQ has anything to do with vaccination readiness, especially the higher educated should have known better and being informed by the TV and newspaper does not seem very intelligent. In my opinion, what this research mainly shows is that the higher educated are not intelligent enough to continue to think autonomously when things get exciting.
Dear virusvaria.nl,
What an interesting article! It is fascinating to see that there are studies that show a link between IQ and vaccination readiness. It is important to read and consider these types of studies, as it can help to better understand the various factors that may influence a person's attitude towards vaccination.
I appreciate you taking the time to share this information. As a visitor to your website, I really enjoyed reading this and increasing my knowledge. If you have more interesting articles or studies, I look forward to reading those as well.
If you are interested in learning more about topics like these, I would like to invite you to visit my website, link removed, to visit. There you will find a wealth of information on various topics.
Thank you and keep up the good work sharing engaging content!
Sincerely,
Alan Waker
Dear Wanker,
I propose that we criminalise the use of AI as a spam machine. What do you think about that?
I am 71 years old and have a bachelor's degree as an analytical, chemical and biochemical analyst. When I look at the following 2 lines, from the article, I have to conclude that I don't belong in either of these 2 groups:
1. For people with a higher IQ, the media serves as a source of information.
2. The group with a lower IQ missed out on all this information. They watch VI and Temptation Island
I never watched the programs of group 2 and already at the start of the corona plandemic I very quickly started to doubt and search the internet for other messages. Especially from America came messages that seemed more logical to me. With the help of these messages and by thinking logically and cleverly, you could very quickly draw the conclusion that everything was different from what we were told by the media and the government. That we were lied to by Rutte and de Jonge.
At the time, I had to convince my husband (Englishman) with many articles and videos from real scientists. He was also worried that he would not be able to go back to England if he did not take a "vaccine". Fortunately, he quickly figured it out and is just as fanatical as I am.
Goed gedaan!