Science is venerated by many people like a religion, including people who call themselves intelligent and people who call themselves stupid. The word Science is invoked by politicians and advertisers as if to say that whatever they say is true because it is backed by Science. Yet some philosophers are quite critical of many conclusions of Science, why is that? Are they less intelligent, more stupid than so-called scientists and than people who idolize Science, or do they see things that these people don’t see or refuse to see?

You say Science is the most trustworthy system of the planet, does it mean people were right to believe that continental drift is a ridiculous fantasy when scientists claimed that? Does it mean people were right to believe that rogue waves don’t exist when scientists claimed they didn’t exist even though there were reports of their existence? Does it mean people were right to believe that there is no such thing as microscopic germs, or no such thing as invisible matter, when that’s what Science claimed? Does it mean people were right to believe that we would never reach the surface of the Moon, when that was the scientific consensus?

From these few examples out of many, how can we reasonably say that what Science says (or rather what the scientific consensus says) is the most trustworthy system of the planet? Turns out that in these examples the people who disagreed with that consensus were the trustworthy ones.

The people who distrust the scientific consensus do not do so because they fear superior intelligence, but because they can tell that this consensus can be wrong and has often been wrong, no matter how forcefully the proponents of the consensus want to shove it down everyone’s throat. People who idolize Science remember the successes and forget the failures, and won’t know how much of the current consensus is wrong until much later.

Well, the point of the text isn't to venerate science specifically, but to consider the fact that people have a natural distrust of intelligence. I'll correct the part of the text that implies that science is specifically the only intelligent thing that is wrongly distrusted because of this intuition.

You make an interesting point. Many people have come to distrust “intelligence” because they see their interests destroyed or diverted by the manipulation of language and facts. Part of this may be because of the aura of education, that the educated know best, and that their intelligence represents that manipulation and deceit.
They're equally suspicious of the contradiction presented by the simple language of those trying to be one of them, one of the people, just an ordinary bloke.

Who can people trust? What is the language they can trust? Can they only trust those from their group who unconsciously speak a common language, understood for all its complex little nuances?

Okay, yes I agree that there can be a distrust of people who seem intelligent, but more generally there can be a distrust of people who seem more able in some way, for instance of people who have a greater physical force, or people who have more power for some reason. And the reason for that is easy to see, when we don’t know someone well we don’t know whether they have good or ill intentions with respect to ourselves, so not blindly trusting that they have good intentions is a necessary way to protect oneself. Especially if the other person or group of people is seen to be powerful in some way.

ps. Everything in the text is oversimplified and too extreme. It's pretty much a rant, but it makes a coherent point. Any thoughts? — Qmeri

I appreciate the contextual disclaimer.

It seems to me people distrust and trust too much intelligence or what seems to be intelligence. Yes, some people like leaders who put things simply, but I don't thnk they also think their leader preferences are less intelligent. Less clever, potentially. Less fancy, sure. Less academic, sure.

But someone who loved Bush and was skeptical about Obama, and based this distrust in part on Obama's clearly more complicated and well organized speech, I think would be very unlikely to say that Obama is more intelligent, especially where it counts: policies and ideas that are good for us and in relation to those that are bad for us.

But someone who loved Bush and was skeptical about Obama, and based this distrust in part on Obama's clearly more complicated and well organized speech, I think would be very unlikely to say that Obama is more intelligent, especially where it counts: policies and ideas that are good for us and in relation to those that are bad for us. — Coben

I do agree that no one ever says it out aloud or even thinks consciously that he distrusts someone because that person is intelligent. But the distrustful feelings and intuitions people have seem to be caused of things associated with intelligence.

And when I think about it... even I found Bush to be quite honest because he seemed to be so simple that he probably wasn't able to create complicated lies even if he tried to... unless he was next level and that was all for show.

Okay, yes I agree that there can be a distrust of people who seem intelligent, but more generally there can be a distrust of people who seem more able in some way, for instance of people who have a greater physical force, or people who have more power for some reason. And the reason for that is easy to see, when we don’t know someone well we don’t know whether they have good or ill intentions with respect to ourselves, so not blindly trusting that they have good intentions is a necessary way to protect oneself. Especially if the other person or group of people is seen to be powerful in some way. — leo

Agreed... There are many things that evolution makes us distrustful of. But intelligence is peculiar in that practically all the systems we use to achieve trustworthy information require intelligence. So if we distrust intelligence, we also distance ourselves from much of the trustworthy information available.

One thing that is missing in your rant is maybe the social/moral dimension.

Intelligence relies on doubting. You only get smart by questioning things over a pro-longed period of time. And so it naturally undercuts intuïtions and faith.

Historically and evolutionary, the individual heavily relied on the succes of the group, and so generally anything that threatened the group was frowned upon.

A group of people allways is in flux untill someone establishes dominance and imposses an order so that the group can function as more than a mere collection of individuals, and more as a unit.

To keep everybody functioning in that specific order (and to keep on top), those in power essentially made up stories so that people don't start questioning the imposed order... If the order falls away it's back to flux and a struggle for power, harming the functioning of the group as a unit in the proces (and necessarily also harming the individual that relies on the group).

Intelligentsia are a treat to said order because they question those stories, and so in the proces also threaten the order imposed.

In the end Socrates had to drink his Hemlock for questioning the Gods!

But intelligence is peculiar in that practically all the systems we use to achieve trustworthy information require intelligence. So if we distrust intelligence, we also distance ourselves from much of the trustworthy information available. — Qmeri

We can’t achieve anything with intelligence alone, we also need to turn it into something, with the help of our body or of tools we create with our body, or by finding how to communicate important information accurately and efficiently to other people, so I wouldn’t say intelligence is somehow fundamentally superior to other abilities. Also intelligence is hard to define precisely, some people are more aware of what goes on around them than others, yet they aren’t said to be intelligent if they don’t express what they see in a complex mathematical formalism. The more intelligent is not always the one who is the more vocal about it.

And fundamentally it’s not a distrust of intelligence, it’s a distrust of people. People can use their intelligence to do great or horrible things. They can use their intelligence to make others believe that they have their best interest at heart in order to manipulate them or destroy them, or to make them accept things that they wouldn’t accept otherwise.

And you talk of trustworthy information, what is trustworthy information? In another thread you weren’t even willing to agree that “something exists” is trustworthy information, that it is truth, so if you won’t agree to that why do you expect people to blindly believe what others say simply because they pretend to be intelligent, simply because they pretend to be somehow more able, to be providers of truth?

Pretending to be a provider of truth is not enough. One has to gain trust as well. And when that trust gets eroded for various reasons, people become suspicious of claims that some authority (such as Science) wants them to believe.

When someone clearly acts through conscious consideration, we say to him: "Stop acting, be yourself!", as if conscious consideration couldn't be a part of what someone truly is. Most politicians try to give the impression that they and their ideas are simple and honest. And Lynyrd Skynyrd is singing about how a simple man is someone you can trust and understand.

There is an evolutionary reason we distrust intelligence. Of course intelligence could be used for inventions and adaptation to the environment even in prehistory. But on social level, the main new thing intelligence brought to the table was that dirty, dirty scheming and lying. You had to be always on your toes when someone was particularly intelligent... any suggestion he made could be for good reasons. But it could also be just to get rid of competition or to get to fuck every woman in the tribe behind your backs.

And this was a good reason to distrust the intelligentsia for millenia. But then came many new things that changed the game. One of them was science - a practical system which had a built in system against lying and corruption and which became the most trustworthy system on the whole planet because of that. And then most of the honest intelligent people became quite the fans of science and they started to loudly declare how scientific they were. They didn't realize that the primitive intuitions of people simply saw arrogant people boasting about their intelligence. And so the intuitions shouted: "Red alert! People saying complicated things hard to understand! Do not trust them! Trust those people who say intuitively simple things!" without realizing that the intuitively simple things they trusted were specifically chosen for them by dishonest intelligent manipulators.

And so we get the modern world: where the scientists and engineers give everyone almost all the resources they have, but where the leaders rarely represent science or engineering.

ps. Everything in the text is oversimplified and too extreme. It's pretty much a rant, but it makes a coherent point. Any thoughts? — Qmeri

I think there's a conflation between intelligence and immorality here. Intelligence doesn't lead to immorality. In fact, it seems philosophy has its origins in the need to know what a good life meant. Assuming the same spirit pervades all intelligent people I think goodness is well-represented among the so-called intelligentsia.

There's always a bad apple but that's always the case no matter how we cut we the cake. One thing though is that evil + intelligence is a dangerous combination but one could easily the same thing about evil + power or evil + influence, etc. Look at the flip side though: good + foolishness never did/does anything good for anybody except maybe help the foolish to shoot themselves in the foot but when good combines with intelligence we have the beginnings of great moral achievements.

It seems, therefore, that intelligence is like a tool at our disposal, and like any tool can be used for good or bad and which option is chosen depends on morality. Just as hammer is not the carpenter, intelligence is not the character of a person.

The unfortunate fact is morality isn't as well-understood a subject and God, if he exists, has chosen to remain hidden to even the most devout amongst us. This does tip the balance towards immorality but that's true for all categories of people - dumb, intelligent, chinese, chefs, cat owners, Christian's, etc. Intelligent people are just one of these categories, not in any way overrepresented.

And you talk of trustworthy information, what is trustworthy information? In another thread you weren’t even willing to agree that “something exists” is trustworthy information, that it is truth, so if you won’t agree to that why do you expect people to blindly believe what others say simply because they pretend to be intelligent, simply because they pretend to be somehow more able, to be providers of truth? — leo

I do agree that a person who is not that intelligent is in a precarious situation. An intelligent person can identify true intelligence with his intelligence. What can someone without that skill do to distinguish between a person who actually understands something and someone who who just pretends? I really don't have an answer for that. Make basic education better? Make everyone more intelligent? People being aware of their intuitions against intelligence couldn't hurt? It's a complex problem, but acknowledging it as a problem is the start.

An intelligent person can identify true intelligence with his intelligence. What can someone without that skill do to distinguish between a person who actually understands something and someone who who just pretends? I really don't have an answer for that. Make basic education better? Make everyone more intelligent? — Qmeri

My solution would be to make everyone dumm.

The present public education system in North America is doing a superb job at it. It makes sure that people don't understand math, the sciences, technology and logical connections. This is a great way to pave the road for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer.

I do agree that no one ever says it out aloud or even thinks consciously that he distrusts someone because that person is intelligent. — Qmeri

I think there is some distrust, yes. But I also think that often what an educated middle class person would call intelligent a lot of Americans don't consider intelligent. I lived in a rural part of the US where there was a college/townie dynamic. I worked closely with both groups, adult versions, and I can say with strong confidence that the not so educated and also service/working class locals thought that the smart professors and administrators and students had their heads up their behinds. They truly considered them stupid, but not in the way people are stupid who don't know a lot of facts or are not well read or don't do well on tests. They might not have used these words, but they thought the people with college degrees, especially advanced ones used jargon, mystification and complicated language to create all sorts of messes. They recognized that these people were smart in certain ways and even had some useful skills, but I truly believe they thought they were dumb in a number of key ways that the salt of the earth were not. And I have to say I saw some serious truth in that.

I am sure there are undercurrents of jealousy and competition and fear, some of it around identity, some around other possibilities like the one in the OP, but I take their sense that these people were dumb not just as a defense mechanism. And since there were often value disagreements, these people certainly thought that the educated class near them had stupid (and dangerous, if not right out evil) values.

I think part of the reason I am digging in a bit here is because I have a similar critique of the class that tends to score well on IQ tests, though I don't share the same politics as those working class people, certainly around social values.

I think it is within Zen where the word 'clever' is used pejoratively. I don't want to go to far off into analyzing and trying to demonstrate this critique, but I mention it to give part of the context to my reaction to the OP.

And when I think about it... even I found Bush to be quite honest because he seemed to be so simple that he probably wasn't able to create complicated lies even if he tried to... unless he was next level and that was all for show. — Qmeri

I think his lies were simple and context based. He knew he was doing the bidding of powerful people and not being up front about that. He knew he wasn't really making decisions. He must have known many of the real motivations for things like the Iraqi war 2, since I can't imagine Cheney and Rumsfeld bothering to hide their goals and interests around him. His lies were not intricate. His lies were simple and he could handle them. As a good, little front man needs to be able to handle. Of course I am sure that he believed, to some degree, what he was saying also. But this is true of intelligent liars, perhaps even more so. We often convince ourselves first, and if you have better bs skills, and further have a more detached mind, you have an advantage lying to yourself and others.

Bush's lies were transparent, and whether he believed them or not we can't know.

But more to the point, is your story about the peasants and the castle.

My friend Paul and I were driving down the street one day, when he said, (this goes back a good 10-20 years) "You know what they want to do next? Shoot another man up to the Moon." Then I said, or he said, "(get out of here), are they really running so low on ideas?" Then I said something and Paul said, "Astronaut fucking moron." I started to laugh uproarously; i told Paul his utterance imitated that of those people, who are full of self-confidence, and if they don't understand something, they declare it stupid.

I think your mysterious ingredient why the stupid call the intelligent or the intelligents' ideas stupid is the Occam's razor of explaining something which they can't come grips with, in terms that speaks to them.

My uncle's butler is similar in a lot of ways.

Another thing that the incredibly stupid do, is say "It has never been that way around here" when I know for a fact it has, even just the week before. This angers me, for some, to me unknown, reason. In other words, "The tickets here never cost $7.50", Hearing this or similar, makes me angry and I don't know why.

I started to laugh uproarously; i told Paul his utterance imitated that of those people, who are full of self-confidence, and if they don't understand something, they declare it stupid. — god must be atheist

I guess I think there's some good intuitive intelligence around questioning the use of resources and use of experts to send people to the moon, right now at least, and a couple of decades ago also. I am not saying there is no pattern where people reject things simply because they don't understand them. But in the end this seems facile to me when given as a blanket explanation for people's reactions to the language use and projects of the very intelligent. I'd get into specific projects I think are idiotic, carried out by people with extremely high IQs and rapidly changing things 'out there' but that would likely hijack the thread. I see a lot of cleverness posing as intelligence out there. Often with a dangerously narrow focus and often working for corporations or governments with agendas that are seriously problematic. Negative reactions to these projects are dismissed as emotional, when in fact there are emotions and desires driving both sides. At a tree level one side is showing a great deal of intelligence. At a forest level, I think they are a lot dumber than they realize and on those issues much dumber than the people they dismiss. And of course it is ad hom at base.

I do agree that a person who is not that intelligent is in a precarious situation. An intelligent person can identify true intelligence with his intelligence. What can someone without that skill do to distinguish between a person who actually understands something and someone who who just pretends? I really don't have an answer for that. Make basic education better? Make everyone more intelligent? People being aware of their intuitions against intelligence couldn't hurt? It's a complex problem, but acknowledging it as a problem is the start. — Qmeri

There is an even bigger problem: how can you tell if you are truly intelligent, or if you simply believe you are because you aren’t truly intelligent?

The underlying problem is, as always, what is true? If we don’t assume that truth exists, the world would quickly turn to hell (hopefully you agree with this, at least). So if we assume that truth exists, what is true? People disagree about plenty of things, for various reasons. It is not hard to see that you aren’t other people and they aren’t you, we are all different in some way, we lead a different life, we have different experiences, so why assume that we see more or understand more than these people? We can’t even tell for sure what they experience, in philosophy that’s known as the problem of other minds.

That doesn’t mean that we can’t move towards truth, but at least it means that we should be more humble, not believe that others have nothing to teach us about existence, they may have gone through experiences we haven’t gone through, seen things we haven’t seen, understood things we haven’t understood, and so it’s important to listen to people, not just tell them what to believe while assuming we know better, sometimes others are the ones who know better and forcing our beliefs onto them simply spreads suffering. But at the same time we must not believe whatever people say simply because we can’t tell for sure whether they’re right or not. There is a careful balance to find, keep an open mind, not too much, but don’t close it too much either.

Then find what you can agree on with other people and move from there. If someone doesn’t agree with your group, don’t exclude them, find what you can agree on with them. And so on.

Whereas the elitist mentality is counterproductive, it is stuck in dogma, spreads them forcefully, and arbitrarily dismisses important insights or discoveries that other people attempt to communicate.

There is an even bigger problem: how can you tell if you are truly intelligent, or if you simply believe you are because you aren’t truly intelligent? — leo

This is an interesting point. And I somewhat agree with it. Although, we do have guite a lot of ways to measure things associated with intelligence objectively, like math, different forms of memory, and countless other things. And while the measurements will never be a perfect assessment of general intelligence (not least because we don't have an objective definition for general intelligence) they are good clues of what one can functionally do with their intelligence. And people who in their lives do badly in these measurable things, seem to distrust intelligence more.

Whereas the elitist mentality is counterproductive, it is stuck in dogma, spreads them forcefully, and arbitrarily dismisses important insights or discoveries that other people attempt to communicate. — leo

Acknowledging the phenomenon of distrust in intelligence by people who perform worse on measurable things associated with intelligence requires no elitism or dogma. While, humans being humans, such things will always produce some elitism, not acknowledging a meaningful phenomenon like this would be even worse. In a way, people who because of this phenomenon distrust the intelligentsia are the ones stuck in dogma, since they arbitrarily dismiss or distrust discoveries because of the particular group communicating them even when this particular group has demonstrated itself particularly trustworthy in that particular subject.

Although, we do have guite a lot of ways to measure things associated with intelligence objectively, like math, different forms of memory, and countless other things. And while the measurements will never be a perfect assessment of general intelligence (not least because we don't have an objective definition for general intelligence) they are good clues of what one can functionally do with their intelligence. And people who in their lives do badly in these measurable things, seem to distrust intelligence more. — Qmeri

Well what is true intelligence? If you define intelligence as being good at maths, having good memory and being good at IQ tests, then by definition someone good at those things is intelligent, but does that necessarily imply they are better equipped to find truth than other people? There can be extremely intelligent people by these criteria who are stuck in false conclusions because even though their logical reasoning is flawless and their thinking very quick, they have started from premises which are false.

We have the intuition that truth exists, that there is a way reality really is like beyond appearances, but until we have found the whole truth we’re all walking in the dark. A given premise may be able to explain a lot of things, but it may be a totally different premise that will allow to explain everything. Many intelligent people (intelligent by the above criteria) believe in materialism, does that mean they are more likely to be right than people who believe differently? Materialism is a belief too, it does not logically follow from the laws of physics, it follows from the belief that the laws of physics can explain everything. As I mentioned there are plenty of historical examples where what the majority of intelligent people believed was simply wrong, and people who were judged as less intelligent were right. So I wouldn’t say that people who are measured to be less intelligent on these criteria are inherently less trustworthy. I wouldn’t say trustworthiness is correlated with intelligence.

Basically you haven’t shown that people who score badly on these criteria distrust intelligence itself, you’re simply mentioning that on average they tend to have different beliefs than the people who score well on these criteria, which in itself doesn’t prove that the beliefs of the former are false while the beliefs of the latter are true. They don’t distrust intelligence, they simply have their own beliefs, and they may distrust people who have a better ability at deceiving and manipulating, an ability which is positively correlated with scoring well on these criteria.

Well, you seem to disregard any point I make about intelligence until I give a robust definition for intelligence, which I can't do. Understandable, I guess. But irregardless of what general intelligence is, we do test people in very specific skills, like most major areas of science. Yet people who haven't done very well when tested in these specific skills often disregard the demonstrated expertise of other people from clear bias against their status of being part of the "intelligentsia". I'm not saying that there aren't any good reasons to distrust someone from this perceived "intelligentsia", but this is a major one and a very bad one.

This bias is demonstrated not only by the evolutionary reason for such intuitions, but also by the kind of behavior and language one must use to most effectively gain the trust of "non-intelligentsia", which usually includes repetition of how simple and easy to understand your methods and motivations are and mainly speaking on the level of intuition without giving anything well enough defined to be demonstrated false through logical data-analysis. The bad part is that such behavior is relatively easy to fake and it ends up with the masses being relatively easy to manipulate into trusting the very least trustworthy people on the planet: dishonest intelligent manipulators.

There are countless examples of a persons trustworthiness exponentially rising when he demonstrates his distance from the intelligentsia even when it's through his lack of important knowledge, but on the top of my head Henry Ford's 1919 trial against Chicago Tribune comes to mind. Ford lacked elementary school level knowledge of US history and many other things very relevant to things he had been very outspoken about for years, but instead of it being a humiliation, it raised his status within the common folk to new heights.

Human intuition seems to prioritize trustworthiness of someone from the same perceived in-group as you are even over demonstrated knowledge, lack of knowledge or systems that have built in mechanisms against corruption.

To paraphrase Aristotelian ethics, the more intelligent man tends to live a happier higher quality of life. That intelligence also takes the form of a heightened self-awareness in the meme, 'know thyself'.

But that doesn't preclude the likes of 'white collar crime' as you have, in so many words, might be suggesting.

On the other hand, too as you suggested, basic existential needs or values can't be ignored either. Using your metaphor, that's not to say folks who support country music and southern rock shouldn't endorse an idealistic virtuous life of love & peace along with the other simple things in life either... .

The art of living is being able to combine knowledge about the world (through science, engineering, religion, philosophy, psychology, etc.) with interpersonal and social skills and the various intrinsic needs that we have viz the human condition.

In this way, I would certainly caution against dichotomizing higher intelligence and basic existential/human hierarchical needs as them being opposing values. Maybe think about how one can integrate both values of living.

In this way, I would certainly caution against dichotomizing higher intelligence and basic existential/human hierarchical needs as them being opposing values. Maybe think about how one can integrate both values of living. — 3017amen

Well, of course the human condition should be taken into account, since we are seemingly unable to completely control it. And I personally emphasize knowing my own unchangeable properties since they are so important for my performance and happiness. But since my logical mind disagrees on so many goals and properties of my human nature, it always ends up being a compromise no matter how much I try to integrate them together.

But this is a little bit off topic, since the main point of the text is that people, who don't perceive themselves being in the in-group of intelligentsia seem to distrust the intelligentsia even in subjects where they are clearly a very trustworthy source. And while I give evolutionary reasons for this, I'm not trying to say that intelligence and human nature are necessarily always opposing forces, although that would be an interesting topic for a discussion.

Agathon: I'm afraid the word is bad. You have been condemned to death.

Allen: Ah, it saddens me that I should cause debate in the senate.

Agathon: No debate. Unanimous.

Allen: Really?

Agathon: First ballot.

Allen: Hmmm. I had counted on a little more support.

Simmias: The senate is furious over your ideas for a Utopian state.

Allen: I guess I should never have suggested having a philosopher-king.

Simmias: Especially when you kept pointing to yourself and clearing your throat.
— Woody Allen, 'My Apology'

Well, you seem to disregard any point I make about intelligence until I give a robust definition for intelligence, which I can't do. Understandable, I guess. But irregardless of what general intelligence is, we do test people in very specific skills, like most major areas of science. — Qmeri

Note that I didn’t disregard your points, I addressed them, maybe you misunderstood me. My argument didn’t rest on your lack of a robust definition for intelligence, I proposed that we could define intelligence as a measure of how good one is at maths, memorizing, and IQ tests. My argument was then based on that definition.

I explained how people who have a very high intelligence by these criteria can be stuck in false conclusions. I explained how there are many instances where most people who have a high intelligence are wrong whereas many who don’t have a high intelligence are right. Based on this, we shouldn’t demand of people who are measured to have a lesser intelligence to trust people who are measured to have a higher intelligence. Sometimes the intelligent ones are wrong, and the less intelligent are right.

So this is one good reason to not blindly trust people who have a high intelligence. Another good reason to not blindly trust them is that they are also better at deceiving and manipulating people if that’s what they wish. Yet another good reason to have a bias against them is that their superior intelligence often makes them feel entitled to impose their own beliefs onto people of lesser intelligence, and to arbitrarily dismiss what people of lesser intelligence say.

Now if you agree with these three reasons, why do you see it as a bad thing that people of lesser intelligence do not blindly trust the ‘intelligentsia’? It’s not a bad thing to not blindly trust them, it’s a healthy thing.

And why may they be more trusting of people who are not part of the ‘intelligentsia’? Because these people aren’t as good at deceiving, and because they usually feel less entitled to impose their beliefs onto others without listening.

As another counterpoint to what you are saying, there are also people of lesser intelligence who do blindly trust people of higher intelligence. Politicians appeal to the masses by saying things such as “I believe in Science”. Advertisers give as a selling point that “scientists say...”, or “science shows...”. They do that because many people do blindly trust what is labeled ‘science’ or ‘scientific’.

Most people wouldn’t want someone dumb to run their country or some critical system, they do value intelligence. But they don’t value only intelligence, they also value other things, for instance they don’t want to be governed by an emotionless robot who has 200 IQ and superhuman memory, they also want someone who cares about them, why would they trust someone of high intelligence if that person doesn’t care about them?

Politicians are good at deceiving people when they are campaigning, to make them believe that they care about them, but more and more people are waking up to the lies, as they see time and time again that promises aren’t kept and things don’t change, so people aren’t as dumb as the intelligentsia would want them to be.