Challenging everything is a stretch. That's just analysis paralysis. It's being able to entertain contradictory evidence when presented. No form of intelligence should have someone constantly reevaluating everything they know, thats how you end up knowing nothing. See flat earth for example. No new model is bring developed, just criticism of the old.
Depends on what the truth is. There's been a lot of speculation that isn't based on Q: medbeds, NESARA, flat earth, sov cit declarations about ending the United States corporation, aliens communicating with humans for the first time, Jesus' return, and on and on. All of these are not equal, and unfortunately they're not all likely to be correct as they tend to conflict with each other. We're at the point where anything gets through since we don't know what the actual truth will end up being. But the point is, everybody is a normie about something, even here.
What if the 4-6 percent includes anons who won't accept that this is all done until NESARA is enacted? Or that medbeds are real, because a family member can't get treatment for an advanced disease? Will they still be here, hoping for decodes to say that's coming next? The elimination of communism from the US, the destruction of one political party or reinstituting insane asylums might not be enough.