A conversation with Mark Changizi
Discover more from Where are the numbers? by Norman Fenton and Martin Neil
A conversation with Mark Changizi
We discuss whether evidence supports premeditated collusion or are result of the emergent behaviour inherent in complex social systems.
After picking up on one of our posts about the effect of quarantines on flu detection Mark Changizi posted a very interesting piece giving his thoughts on the issue:
My impression is that Mark saw the CDC’s rules on flu testing as biased and yet another example of social systems operating with self-confirming feedback loops that reinforce and reward consensus.
Given his interest in this matter I DM’d him on twitter to ask about his opinion on our next flu post, which I personally think provides very strong evidence that flu surveillance and reporting systems were intentionally broken or disrupted to serve some nefarious interest and hence can’t simply be judged as reactions to the covid-19 panic.
We exchanged messages over the course of the evening and Mark has very kindly agreed to me writing this post and sharing our conversation. At the end I have posted a poll to ask what your views are on the issue.
Note that during the conversation some links to articles and videos were exchanged and these are embedded in the conversation. Feel free to skip them or visit Mark’s substack for all of his material.
According to ancient Jewish law if a panel of the Sanhedrin (23 Jewish judges) unanimously find a defendant guilty of murder then they must acquit on the assumption that their verdict is most likely to be “too good to be true”. The underlying assumption behind this rule is that, in this situation, the Sanhedrin’s judgement may be systematically biased, and hence the judgements may be dependant, one on another, rather than each judgement produced independently.
Poll
 | A guest post by
|
A conversation with Mark Changizi
I stopped reading the discourse after a few exchanges because this is BULLSHIT. Of course it was pre-planned. Explain EVENT 101 to me then? Or explain the presentation I saw on UK Column at least two years back, where a media mogul described how you control the media for two months and you start a crisis. I think he engineered the Foot and Mouth scare. Go to The Corbett report and tell me this wasn't pre-planned. For God's sake, just go to the WEF's website and they lay out exactly what they would like to happen. This discussion is just part of the psyop (like Fenton talking to John Campbell) to try to get us who KNOW what happened, to have some kind of 'Mandella Effect' moment and pretend it didn't happen.
Every problem must be a nail if you’re a hammer. There’s way too much effort here to say, since X isn’t necessary, then X doesn’t exist. If a boulder was thrown, and did start the avalanche, then it’s a “first cause” (stupid name for such a thing because it opens the door to infinite regression). But just because avalanches can occur without the boulder doesn’t mean the boulder doesn’t exist or wasn’t thrown. And just because Wile E. Coyote has failed in every previous attempt, doesn’t mean that when we see him finish a meal that we can be certain it’s not the roadrunner. Furthermore, is it not possible to kick off a stampede or a murmuration by disturbing key individuals within the group intentionally?
I understand that the mere possibility doesn’t make it the explanation. But I’ve come to the same place in the last year or so as what I take to be Martin’s position. All the evidence taken together now makes “intentional steering” the best fitting model and seems to satisfy Occam’s razor. We can only guess at the intentions, true. But this individual seems far too dogmatic in framing all problems as nails for his specialized hammer.
It is possible to be a little of both, and in my opinion “both” is the best explanation for what we see. And “which came first” is a foolish question. Because one can always ask, “what happened before that?”
To me, using basic tools back in early 2020, the institutionally published numerical data (from government, public health, academia, etc) seemed likely to be fraudulent. Since then, the likelihood has only increased. Because institutions have even more sophisticated tools available to them than I do, there are individuals at those institutions that know the truth but say nothing. Worse still, they continue to publish the fraudulent data. This, plus nudging (a euphemism for intentional steering), moves us outside “network hysteria” as the explanation for the lying experts. If an expert looks at data and lies about it for a “noble” purpose, that’s not network hysteria causing their behavior. That’s intentional steering that leverages network hysteria for some perceived benefit. We don’t need to know why to identify it correctly, to reject the supposed nobility of purpose, and to hold them accountable for it.
In my not so humble, and frustrated, opinion. Frustrated that we still find ourselves consumed by reductionism one way or another, and that we are so obsessed with knowing why. (Chalking everything up to emergent phenomena is a form of reductionism!)