It’s well known that people with less education were more likely to vote Leave in the Brexit referendum. Which is probably why pro-Remain commentators felt able to question Leave voters’ understanding of the relevant issues. Richard Dawkins referred to an “ignorant and misled public”, while Baroness King claimed that many people “were unaware of the far-reaching consequences of the EU referendum”.
But were Leave voters less intelligent? Yes, according to a new study. Chris Dawson and Paul Baker analysed data from a large UK survey in which respondents were given various tests of cognitive ability, as well as being asked how they voted in the referendum. The authors’ main finding is displayed in the chart below.
The x-axis is divided into ten deciles of cognitive ability. What’s a decile? Well, the first decile comprises the lowest-scoring 10%, the second decile comprises the next lowest-scoring 10%, and so on. And the tenth decile comprises the highest-scoring 10%. Each bar corresponds to the percentage of people in the relevant decile (shown on the y-axis) who said they voted Remain.
As you can see, around 40% of respondents in the lowest decile of cognitive ability said they voted Remain, compared to around 70% of those in the highest decile. So a clear majority of the most intelligent respondents supported Remain rather than Leave.
Dawson and Baker ran a multivariate analysis, and found that cognitive ability remained an important predictor of voting Remain when controlling for age, gender, education, political party and various other factors.
Their findings don’t actually come as a big surprise. At least two studies have already reported an advantage for Remain supporters on numerical reasoning – which is one component of cognitive ability. And another study (by yours truly) reported a positive association between average cognitive ability and intention to vote Remain at the level of local authorities.
What does come as a surprise is the authors’ interpretation. They suggest that “erroneous reporting surrounding the referendum might have complicated personal decision making, especially for those with low cognitive ability”. And say “it is also possible that those with lower levels of cognitive ability… are more receptive to divisive ideas”.
“If those lower in cognitively ability are more vulnerable to misinformation,” the authors write, “then political campaigns based on (mis/dis) information may prevail depending on the ability distribution of the electorate.” The implication being that the Brexit campaign was based, to a larger extent than the Remain campaign, on “misinformation”.
I’m not convinced. The Brexit campaign having (allegedly) engaged in “erroneous reporting” and “misinformation”, and having (allegedly) promoted “divisive ideas”, is not a plausible explanation for the fact that less intelligent people were more likely to vote Leave.
To begin with, one can dispute that the Brexit campaign did engage in “erroneous reporting” and “misinformation”, and did promote “divisive ideas”, to a greater extent than the Remain campaign.
More importantly, the referendum was not primarily a disagreement over facts. It was a disagreement over values. The Leave side valued national sovereignty and control over immigration, while the Remain side valued being part of a large trade bloc, as well as being able to live and work in other European countries. Neither perspective is obviously wrong; each has to be argued on its merits.
Where cognitive ability comes in is that the Leave side’s values appealed more to those who score lower on that trait. Indeed, it has long been known that less intelligent people tend to have more socially conservative attitudes, particularly on issues like immigration. So it’s hardly surprising they were more likely to vote for the side representing socially conservative values.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It isn’t just Porsche. If you look at investment in electric across the board, Toyota for example, there is great caution in terms of only offering one thing and not really pushing it. This is a fatal exercise. A lithium fire is very difficult to put out and you sit on top of a giant battery. It was impressive for a while but now looks monstrous.
It has been a battle against us for a hundred years and now we are winning. Petrol cars, dirty somkestacks, countries developing their industry, That is what we should support.
1kg of petrol contains fourteen times more energy than 1kg of the best battery.
Real eyes realise real lies; shame that most people don’t know the difference between a wall socket and a power station, never mind perform energy calculations. All they can do is watch Ed Milibrain spout nonsense about cheap energy from windmills and solar panels – even he believes it all, that’s why so many believe what he says.
But don’t worry – solid state batteries are soon going to save us all!
Petrol produces energy, batteries store energy produced by something else… fossil fuels usually. Some of that energy is lost in transmitting it from the power station, in the charger unit and during the charge/discharge process. About 20% of the energy stored cannot be used.
Given that energy loss between fossil fuel power station and electric motor, it requires more electricity generation and thus greater CO2 emissions, than just burning petrol/diesel.
And burning gas at home is often more efficient thermally than using electricity from a gas fired power station, unless you’re using an old fashioned boiler.
Oh-oh. The conspiracy theorists aren’t going to like this…
”JUST IN: President Joe Biden seen in public for the first time in nearly a week, debunking conspiracy theories online.
The development comes after bogus reports shared online claimed Biden was in “hospice care” and was unexpected to make it through the night.
Those claims were completely false.
Biden’s doctor says the president has “recovered” from cov*d: “He never manifested a fever, and his vital signs remained normal… his lungs remained clear.”
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1815807242500988997
“He never manifested a fever?” It was very convenient.
They put tomato juice on the lateral flow test.
His vital signs have not been normal for years.
Biden’s doctor says the president has “recovered” from cov*d: “… his lungs remained clear.”
If his lungs remained clear then he didn’t have Cov*d. And thuoght the latest theory is that tomorrow’s White House address will be an AI video purporting to be the BidenDolt.
Haha, people pissed off that Biden is still in fact alive, but keep shooting the messenger…
”Amid all the turbulence of the last couple of weeks, there is now at least one thing we can be sure of: Joe Biden, who is still the ostensible president of the United States, is still alive. Biden was caught on video emerging feebly from the presidential limousine, carrying, but not wearing, a COVID mask, as if to remind the world of the official story of why he has been out of sight for so long.
This was the anticlimactic way that the man who used to be called the leader of the free world reappeared after nearly a weak out of the public eye. In the interim, events have been moving quickly. Old Joe retired to his taxpayer-funded walled Delaware beach home, vowing to stay in the race and end the menace of the Bad Orange Man. He emerged a has-been, already forgotten by the political and media elites in their haste to anoint the Democrats’ new nominee as the ideal candidate—the nominee that leftists have been searching for but didn’t know they already had.
And so what next for the cast-aside corruptocrat? Biden’s X wonk announced on his account Tuesday morning: “Tomorrow evening at 8 PM ET, I will address the nation from the Oval Office on what lies ahead, and how I will finish the job for the American people.” The world will once again be watching Biden for signs of his cognitive abilities or lack thereof, and even though the Democrats have deep-sixed Biden as a candidate, his dementia is still a live issue.
The Democrats have placed themselves in a lose-lose situation. If Biden staggers and stumbles through his remarks and demonstrates yet again that his cognitive decline is getting markedly worse, the question of why he is still serving as president until Jan. 20, 2025, will become urgent. If, on the other hand and against all odds, Biden delivers his remarks flawlessly or even something close to that, the focus will be on why the Democrats, the self-appointed guardians of “our democracy,” chose to thwart the will of their own voters and throw Old Joe under the bus because they had started to doubt that he could beat Trump.”
https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2024/07/23/its-alive-biden-makes-first-appearance-since-dropping-out-n4930993
They’ve had a week of “covid” keeping him out of sight while they carried out the switch … AND to get his meds right.
I expect he’ll get through the address without any absolute disaster.
Wasn’t his cognitive decline a conspiracy theory not so long ago – as well his withdrawal from the candidacy?
So… are you sure it’s him not a double, or as some are suggesting an old video of him from months ago?
I have had a good look at the EV business and my conclusion is that they are not appropriate for private ownership, the risks, costs and liabilities are unacceptably high. I would happily drive one if I could beg, borrow, hire of lease one but my conclusion is that these are not machines that it would be wise for a private motorist to own. It appears that one way or another large numbers of the public have come to a similar conclusion.
In the UK we have the Zero emissions mandate, if EVs are not selling then car firms will either need to restrict sales of Petrol/diesel cars or pay huge fines. The zero-emissions mandate is linked to the UK Climate Change Act and therefore in the UK either they rescind or change this act or, if EVs are not selling, then we are looking at the demise of private motoring and the UK motor industry. Meanwhile used car sales are reportedly on the rise as people look to protect and hang on to their travel freedoms, as reported by Geoff Buys Cars;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-bozlLl_h4
The car companies will pay the fines and pass the cost to the consumer.
And Labour get another tax stream…
Only if consumers pay. I doubt people will pay £15 000 more for a car particularly if otherwise it would cost the same or less than that.
If BEVs offered the same or greater benefits as ICEVs, we would have been driving them for about a hundred years.
The problem has always been the batteries, heavy (deadweight), bulky, cannot provide enough charge for adequate range, take long time to recharge.
The idea that there is some breakthrough technology just waiting to be invented to provide lightweight, fast charge, long range batteries is fantasy – on the list with nuclear fusion, hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen gas as an alternative to natural gas, carbon capture, and batteries big enough to store enough electricity to solve the insoluble wind/solar intermittency problem.
The whole nonsense is going to fall on Sir Kneel’s and Bacon Butty Miliband’s heads the moment people can’t buy or afford to buy new cars and car factories start closing and people lose their jobs.
Who buys an electric Porsche
People who thought they were rich
Government will have to come riding over the hill blowing bugles and enforcing draconian mandates and offering taxpayer funded subsidy to EV’s like Confetti at a Greek Wedding, while at the same time crucifying the general public with punitive taxation on their perfectly good petrol or diesel car. Money that the country does not have and which could be put to much better use will be used by this eco fundamentalist Labour Government to pretend to save the planet harder and faster than all other governments, giving us all energy bills through the roof and even after our bills have doubled again that twerp Miliband will stand there at podiums and on the BBC pronouncing “Renewables are now cheaper than Fossil fuels” ————What a bare faced lying piece of human crap this man is.
“Ordinary” people aren’t as daft as the Globalists think they are.
I hope not
“Sales will depend on uptake.”
That annoying thing – consumer preferences.
It really is annoying to have to be a consumer led business having to produce stuff that people want. It’s much more convenient to be product led, producing stuff you want consumers to have.
But dammit! That never works except in totalitarian States.