2 ms·

That's impossible to know. It's making an assumption based on a predetermined belief that lower intelligence votes for things others more "righteous" disagree w

That's impossible to know. It's making an assumption based on a predetermined belief that lower intelligence votes for things others more "righteous" disagree with. There is no causal relationship between voting and intelligence, and it's elitist to believe so. Many highly intelligent people voted for Brexit, but they are deemed "lower intelligence" by those who voted against it. It's like saying only low intelligent people vote liberal. It's impossible to measure, purely assumed. Just because someone disagrees does not mean they are lower intelligence. I think the whole study is ballocks.

bena 3y ago
> It's making an assumption based on a predetermined belief that lower intelligence votes for things others more "righteous" disagree with. In this case, it's not an assumption. The majority of Brexit voters were less intelligent. That's just how it is. It doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong however. > Many highly intelligent people voted for Brexit, but they are deemed "lower intelligence" by those who voted against it. One does not necessarily follow the other. It really feels like you're trying to defend a Brexit vote more than anything else here. And I get it, everything bad about it that was claimed came to fruition while none of the good happened. And people were explicitly told that what the problems would be and that the other side was at best wishful thinking. People can point to receipts and say "Look, we literally told you so". But, the voters listened to people they listened to their entire lives. They trusted those people. And they disregarded people they saw as contrarian. Because that's where politics was going at the time, high polarization where conformity to one's "side" being the most important factor. Often at the expense of actual policy. It's now so bad that if one side has a completely reasonable, middle of the road, easy to implement take, the other side has to reject simply because it came from "the wrong side". But things like Brexit were indicators of this polarization taking hold.

bena 3y ago

> It's making an assumption based on a predetermined belief that lower intelligence votes for things others more "righteous" disagree with. In this case, it's not an assumption. The majority of Brexit voters were less intelligent. That's just how it is. It doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong however. > Many highly intelligent people voted for Brexit, but they are deemed "lower intelligence" by those who voted against it. One does not necessarily follow the other. It really feels like you're trying to defend a Brexit vote more than anything else here. And I get it, everything bad about it that was claimed came to fruition while none of the good happened. And people were explicitly told that what the problems would be and that the other side was at best wishful thinking. People can point to receipts and say "Look, we literally told you so". But, the voters listened to people they listened to their entire lives. They trusted those people. And they disregarded people they saw as contrarian. Because that's where politics was going at the time, high polarization where conformity to one's "side" being the most important factor. Often at the expense of actual policy. It's now so bad that if one side has a completely reasonable, middle of the road, easy to implement take, the other side has to reject simply because it came from "the wrong side". But things like Brexit were indicators of this polarization taking hold.