7 ms·

> Empirical studies have shown that older people are better than younger ones in terms of control over emotion, knowing themselves better, making better decisio

• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• earforu 9y ago
  Maybe because of differences of education and history between generations. We should compare 65+ yo people with how they were 40 years ago, not with 25 yo of today.
• dijit 9y ago
  I am curious too, the brexit vote for many people was an emotional one. It was certainly not based in any logic that anyone can cite. That sample is too large to be anecdatum. However to play devils advocate; leave voters were drip fed anti-EU propaganda for decades with nobody on the EU side defending it, and the run up to the referendum there was a lot of lying. So the fault may be that people were more susceptible to misinformation in that state.
  • gadders 9y ago
    Just because someone examines the same facts as you and comes to a different conclusion, it doesn't mean their choice wasn't based on facts.
    • vacri 9y ago
      How is that funding boost to the NHS going?
      • gadders 9y ago
        How was the emergency budget that was going to have to be called immediately after a Leave vote?
    • dijit 9y ago
      Analysing facts has nothing to do with it, and the EU only has europa.eu, not the entire Murdoch media franchise. Regardless, there are simple facts that people seem to ignore in this debate so I can't take what you said as wholesome or objective. For instance, the UK was the only member not to impose an easing period in regards to Poland joining the EU. As such we saw an influx of poles as those who wanted to emigrate had nowhere else to go. Purely self-inflicted. But politicians blame the EU for this. Another instance is: "No way to inhibit EU freedom of movement for those who choose to move here! We have to give them all our benefit money!". Well, you have to afford EU citizens the same rights as UK citizens for 6 months, if they're not economically active they do not have the right to stay. The benefit law could easily be amended to be like Sweden/Denmark in that you get paid based on previous salaries, meaning you had to have held a job in the country before claiming income support. Denmark is surprisingly hostile to immigrants even EU ones, we could have learned a lot from them if the argument is migration. Particular instances of lying are: coercive wording "350M a week, lets spend it on the NHS instead" or, more explicit lies such as "Human rights prevented deportation of a criminal because he had a cat". The full reason he was not deported was because of his relationship, the cat was entered as evidence because he had bought it for his partner, it was an attempt by the defence to make the point that long-term relationships have some credence under the law in this age of declining marriage rates.
  • coldtea 9y ago
    And remain voters were drip fed state-sponsored pro-EU propaganda as well. The EU spends tons of money for promoting itself.
    • dijit 9y ago
      As a british citizen, I had heard nothing about the EU outside of what british media told me. Had I not left the UK and actually seen the EU I would only have their opinion and that opinion is mostly controlled by one person.
      • coldtea 9y ago
        >As a british citizen, I had heard nothing about the EU outside of what british media told me. A lot of the journalists in those media where wined and dined courtesy of Brussels, and there are several EU and state sponsored campaigns to promote EU across member states. This is just an example: "The spending is part of a near €3 million war chest this year funding 84 projects across Britain and the EU with the aim to “channel criticism into a useful, constructive and positive driver for European integration in the long run”." https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eus-3m-war-chest-to-fund-brussels-propaganda-g0v0zqfls https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eus-3m-war-chest-to-fund-... "Ten out of 84 programmes the European Commission is funding around the bloc this year to "challenge euroscepticism" directly involve Britain, according to research".
        • tremon 9y ago
          So you're complaining about a spend of 10% of €3 million, i.e. 250k GBP? That's peanuts even for a society the size of Nothern Ireland, let alone all of Britain. Please take a look at [0], and take a sample of how much of the misinformation listed there originated in English "newspapers". Then again tell us how you think that 250k GBP is unjustified? [0] http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
          • coldtea 9y ago
• nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
  I have no investment in the outcome of Brexit but I have to say that speaking as if it was objectively worse is dismissive of the section of population who showed up and voted in favour of it.
  • paganel 9y ago
    They deserve what they voted for. Have almost no direct stake in this, I'm just tired of this mantra of "showing respect for what people chose". It's not wrong telling someone that they made a bad decision, no matter if you offend said person by doing so. I personally wish my friends would be the same towards me, i.e. tell me whenever they think I made bad decisions.
    • nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
      I did use the phrase "objectively worse". I see no substantiation for that yet. Also, this depends a lot on what they were looking for when they voted. I can easily say one of these: I do/don't like the outcome. However, I find it difficult to say: "they collectively chose incorrectly". I do, however, agree that in general a population deserves whatever it is that they voted for.
      • reitanqild 9y ago
        > However, I find it difficult to say: "they collectively chose incorrectly". That might just because you are a tolerant, reasonable person. If you were a bit more arrogant and rude like some others at this site it would be much easier for you. Source: Back when I was an even more intolerant, stupid and annoying guy I had no problems flaming whole religions or nations.
        • JBReefer 9y ago
          Hey, it sounds like you're wiser than you used to be, now that you're older! The rest of these posts are so arrogant, it's sad.
    • 9y ago
• Scarblac 9y ago
  The younger people weren't wise enough to actually show up and vote. If they had voted in the same numbers, there wouldn't be Brexit.
  • j45 9y ago
    Bingo, not all ages groups are present in voting
• vixen99 9y ago
  Instead of making the ridiculous (i.e. unsupported and wild) generalization to the effect that if you voted for Brexit you were unwise (stupid?) which frankly amounts to little more than name-calling, why not go head to head with the <arguments> made by hundreds of business leaders and intellectuals who voted Leave? I don't hold out any hope because you certainly give the impression of someone who's impervious to argument.
• skissane 9y ago
  I think part of the explanation is cultural changes over time. The EU is very much a symbol of internationalism/globalism, even if localised into a continental context, while Brexit is a nationalistic rebellion against it. Nationalism was more popular/accepted in the past (especially so for British nationalism), so older people tend to be more sympathetic to nationalism, and hence more likely to support Brexit. Whereas, I think the popular culture is moving away from nationalism and towards internationalism/globalism instead. (Not universally – subgroups like the alt right are moving in the other direction, but they are a minority.) Part of that move is no doubt due to the Internet, which helps people see themselves as part of one planet by interacting with people in other countries on a regular basis. Teenagers watching YouTube are just as likely to watch videos from other countries as their own (provided they understand the language), which is accelerating the process of global unification of popular culture which the media and entertainment industries had already begun. But these sorts of cultural changes always effect the younger people the most, whereas older people are more likely to retain cultural outlooks prevalent when they were younger. The young are naturally a leading indicator of social and cultural change, the old a trailing indicator of it. (It is more complicated in that a lot of younger people can be positive about globalist/internationalist institutions such as the EU and the UN over nation-states, yet also often quite sympathetic to separatist nationalisms such as those of Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque country, Kosovo, Palestine, Kurdistan, Tibet, West Papua, etc. To some extent that seems contradictory, and the idealist tendency of the young to support the underdog may explain that contradiction; on the other hand, to support regional nationalisms can be in a way anti-nationalistic, in that supporting smaller nationalisms against larger ones (e.g. Scottish nationalism against British nationalism, Basque/Catalan nationalism against Spanish nationalism) can be seen as consistent with a broader anti-nationalist outlook–one can foresee a future for Europe in which the existing nation-states are sucked away simultaneously in both directions, upward by the growth in power of the EU and downward by devolutionist and secessionist movements (that are hopeful that the structures of the EU might make their devolutionist or secessionist projects easier and more successful.))
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • notahacker 9y ago
• coldtea 9y ago
  >How does this explain Brexit? Brexit is a political decision. It's not inherently good or bad, some people with so and so interests find it good, others with so and so interests find it bad. Similarly, some people think other people voted that "against their own best interests", other people think that they voted according to their interests just fine, and that the condescending ones don't really know better. Countries signed up to the EU because of certain proposed benefits (among them, the idea that they need to keep Germany bound, an openly stated goal of early diplomats and politicians that were fundamental in the creation of ECSC/EEC/EU. Long after that, Germany re-united, took the de facto economic leadership of EU, and now votes for AfD. (For a great overview of the climate and the tensions behind EU's creation and later development, I suggest: https://www.amazon.com/New-Old-World-Perry-Anderson/dp/1844677214 https://www.amazon.com/New-Old-World-Perry-Anderson/dp/18446... ). Furthermore, EU has always been problematic from a democratic perspective, with bureaucrats at the helm, and an opaque process of decision-making (complete with several non-official-bodies, non-accountable to anyone, that nevertheless convene and take decisions that affect all member states). Add to that certain "circles of influence" between countries due to historical, cultural and economic ties, where a country might control several other countries votes (and thus have undue influence in EU decisions) and it's not that great a bundle deal. So, if some country doesn't see the benefits in EU membership, they can always flee. Whether it will hurt its economy is not the be-all end-all question to make the decision "rational" or not, as a) the EU is not exactly a paragon of economic stability, b) economies can rebound, c) the economic impact is not the ultimate criterion by which countries decide everything they do. (As for an open market and open standard they can always happen across European countries without common single law and economic steering from Brussels -- I don't think China and the US for example have much issues in trading, despite not belonging to the same federation). It's also about personal interests. Young voters might vote Bremain for reasons like "it's the progressive thing to do", "we want a united Europe", "I want to be able to work in any EU country" etc. Older voters might be more cynical on to what EU actually offers because of their experience, and they also don't have much to gain by EU mobility (nobody --and by that I mean extremely few-- is going to leave everything and start a new career in France in their 50s and 60s) or other things that might be enticing to young voters. That might be selfish of them, but it's not senile or irrational: it's pragmatic. In other words, no, Brexit is not some "proof" that older British get increasingly unwise. At worst, it could mean that they can be wrong in some decision, as is the case with everyone. But the question was not whether they can never cast a wrong vote, but whether they have more experience, control over emotion, better decision making empathy, and other such traits TFA talks about than their younger cohorts. You can have all those and still make this or that bad decision.
• reitanqild 9y ago
  > How does this explain Brexit? You are framing this like Brexit was a mistake. In a few more years I guess you'll understand better. Note: I'm not saying I'd vote leave but at least I'm old enough to see why others would.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• vacri 9y ago
  Look at it a different way, re: empathy. 90+% of voters 65+ cared enough about the society they live in to show up to that vote. Only 64% of 18-24 and 66% of 25-39s did. How much empathy is there really, if you can't even be bothered to do something as small as showing up to vote?
• mynameishere 9y ago
  Well, it seems the older people were indeed wiser, more compassionate, more empathetic, thus confirming the study. Young people were mainly voting based on self-interest (ie, "I want to be able to work in Lisbon (or wherever) if a good job opens up") whereas old people were voting for the long-term independence and sovereignty of the whole nation--which would help older people the least.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• ThomPete 9y ago
  Not sure what you mean. There are plenty of arguments for leaving the EU.
• KGIII 9y ago
  I don't know enough about Brexit to form an opinion, which is good. It enables to to seriously ask this question. Have you actually considered that your opinion on Brexit could be wrong? Have you really given that any consideration? I don't have a nickel invested, so your answer doesn't matter to me. It may matter to you, however.
  • Clubber 9y ago
    Agree. Unlike how most news outlets portray it, most issues have valid points on both sides. If someone doesn't understand both sides and can argue either, they don't really understand the problem. If they don't understand the problem and defer to news coverage, and are being manipulated. Based on most of the coverage of Brexit, I wouldn't have any idea what the pro-Brexit points are. I also don't have a horse in that race, just observations.
    • TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I'm not sure if I could argue the leave side fully, but here are the two points they have I believe are very much important: - Many people do like sovereignty of their state, and fear EU is evolving towards weakening, and eventually subsuming nation states. Discussion of the merits of both the position and the fear is a complex thing that needs to go into details, and a one which media failed to do properly. - Many people also dislike the immigration situation within the EU. Again, this is also a very complex topic. Neither of those points, I believe, can be dismissed out of hand, which is often what happens in discussion about Brexit. (Disclaimer: I have no direct horse in this race, but I am a citizen of the EU and kind of like it to stay, so I lean towards the stay side.)
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • KekDemaga 9y ago
      I have found that people, despite protestations to the contrary virtually always argue for policy that they believe would benefit them personally in some way. I came to this realization after reading and watching fairly extensively the arguments against income inequality. I personally feel that lack of opportunity is a waste of human resources as surely countless great people who would have shaped society for the better have died without leaving that impact due to lack of access to capitol. Now 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day, in my view these are the true victims of income inequity yet as I watched debate after debate these people were never mentioned. In fact the people debating seemed to believe that relatively wealthy, often educated Americans would be the beneficiaries of a more "fair" (fairness is debatable and outside of the scope of what I'm saying here) income distribution. That isn't the case as per capita incomes if all global GDP were distributed equally would be around ten thousand dollars per person before taxes, much less than the vast majority of Americans receive as cash income not counting government programs (remember all governmental services must be paid out of that ten thousand. Roads, police, healthcare, food stamps, etc). Thus income inequality isn't the problem they are attempting to resolve instead they are attempting to resolve it in a very limited arbitrary scope that happens to improve their own personal fortunes while ignoring most of the world that is suffering to a greater extent than they will ever experience. This is not to say a particular group is bad, just that their ideas no matter how cleverly disguised are at their core about promoting self interest just like everyone else. I expect the people who voted leave had similar intentions as did the remain voters, naked self interest.
• sophont42 9y ago
  You are assuming Brexit is unwise.
• DonaldFisk 9y ago
  The objective implications of leaving the EU vs. staying in it -- things like trade agreements, the land border with Ireland, and which decisions were imposed by the EU vs. decided by the UK government -- were poorly understood by most of the population. It was a complex issue and most people, regardless of age, were out of their depth. Wisdom, gained in completely unrelated areas, isn't much use if you don't know the facts.