I agree. I'm interested in what is basically a form of psychohistory, but the way they describe it here is clearly and obviously wrong. Honestly it crosses over into stupid. Are they trying to claim that one 10% of a population never completely disagrees with another 10%? Are they saying that if 9% of a population beleives something, then they will never, ever be capable of converting anyone else? If I want my idea to gain traction, must I convert 10% of the population to my side in one single speech, or be doomed to obscurity?