Galaxian wrote: ↑
Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:51 am
One problem with humans is their HUGE degree of gullibility.
That's a nice generalisation you have there. What is it based on? Have you ever bothered to find any empirically testable evidence to support it?
Human gullibility varies from one individual to the next. I have not actually researched its distribution either. There may not even be any statistics based on testable hypotheses. Gullibility is after all a multifaceted, phenomenon. It cannot be measured as easily as, say, IQs, which is quite problematic itself. Then there is the fact that the same people who are gullible on one issue (or set of issues) like money matters, romantic entanglements etc, cannot easily be conned on others*. But if someone did come up with a distribution pattern of gullibility based on reproducible and testable criteria, it would not surprise me if it looked like a bell curve when presented in a graph.
*For instance, anecdotally speaking, I have noticed that individuals who subscribe to one nutty conspiracy theory like the one concerning chemtrails are very likely to believe in the truth of a whole cluster of other conspiracy theories, like big pharma weaponising vaccines for profit, fluoridation of water being a communist plot, the moon landings being faked in a studio, the attack on the world trade towers being perpetrated by the US government and so on. The same people may be simultaneously almost impossible to con out of money. And yes, the situation could be reversed, where a cold-nosed sceptic will accept none of those conspiracy theories because they are bereft of reproducible and testable evidence, but then fall for just about any offer that is literally too good to be true. They are the chosen targets of people that keep coming up with an unending chain of Ponzi schemes.
So you talk about mobs and the working classes as if they were the question. You've got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists. - G.K. Chesterton