IQ / Education & Brexit escape thread.

[sonyc 5,508]

2 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

I left school at 16 but went to night school in my 40s and obtained a history degree in 1998.  Was I more intelligent than I was before?  No, but I'd exercised it to learn a vital skill: how to interrogate facts, what questions to ask to arrive at a conclusion.  Lower levels of education are (or were when I was young) far more concerned with absorbing facts as an end in itself. 

I learned above all that the big questions of history hardly ever have a simple yes/no answer.  So when it came to the referendum, I was unconvinced by empty promises of a Brexit nirvana and voted Remain even though I was well aware that the EU is far from perfect. 

The EU referendum is a prime example of "Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer".

Very good points B. Education in my day (less so nowadays) was often about learning facts and a bank of information. The ability to question seems to me about the ability to see oneself as an individual, not a cog in the system (call it what you will...if you are a Paulo Freire follower you would say it's about the education system and dominant (capitalist) belief system). It's why we ought to teach the ability of young people how to challenge the status quo, how to be curious, how to be more self aware.

Greta Thunberg is a remarkable example I often think when I see her on TV. Whatever one thinks of her, she is very challenging in her questions of others.

[benchwarmer 624]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Yes and it is unfortunate that the absolute binary nature of debates is becoming more prevelent (on both wings of the political spectrum) rather than lesser. There are so many issues out there that are complicated and require nuance, thoughtfulness and compromise but those things have gone so far out of fashion. 

And isn't it ironic that this is happening despite the fact that more people than ever before are educated to degree level, and are (or should be) equipped to handle it. 

But there's nothing like fear to scramble your wits, and fear is what both politicians and the media thrive on.  Fear rules.  Fear sells.  So pump it out 24/7 and they're both happy.  It's known as 'soft power'.  Go beyond "Isn't it terrible what's happening in Ukraine" to "Hang on a minute, what's really going on here?" and they call you a conspiracy theorist.

Edited January 25, 2023 by benchwarmer

[benchwarmer 624]

Anyone who thinks education = intelligence only needs to look at David Cameron. 

Went to Eton and Oxford and came out with a degree in how to trash restaurants and escape the consequences.  Put it into practice by calling the referendum and scuttling off when it didn't work out as planned.

He learned nothing of value because he thought he didn't need to, and there are plenty more like him in the upper echelons of British society. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by benchwarmer

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

23 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

And isn't it ironic that this is happening despite the fact that more people than ever before are educated to degree level, and are (or should be) equipped to handle it. 

But there's nothing like fear to scramble your wits, and fear is what both politicians and the media thrive on.  Fear rules.  Fear sells.  So pump it out 24/7 and they're both happy.  It's known as 'soft power'.  Go beyond "Isn't it terrible what's happening in Ukraine" to "Hang on a minute, what's really going on here?" and they call you a conspiracy theorist.

 

 

I have always been ambivalent about degrees. When I took my mock GCEs, I was predicted to get all of them except Art. Before I took the proper ones, I already had an apprenticeship at Jarrolds. A very good job with prospects and good wages. As I had no idea what I wanted to do if I got to University if I got every GCE, I didn't even bother turning up for the science ones. I was, as were my parents, delighted that I had got an apprenticeship.

After I had moved out of the family home, my Mum took in lodgers as she lived close to the UEA. One of the lads got his degree in Pure Mathematics. And went to work at the YMCA. Maybe he returned to his degree in later years. But at first, he didn't want to be involved with that subject.

Of course we have to have people expert in subjects so that we progress let alone sustain or way of life. Whether they are intelligent is up for debate. Certainly gifted in a particular field or subject, but is that intelligence? Is it memory? Is it IQ? How about common sense?

And of course in terms of work, we do rely on people who are considered less intelligent to work in bacon factories etc where the gift is to switch off from the job and accept it for what it is. Obviously that is what freedom of movement gifted to us as a nation. The jobs that nobody wanted were being done for us and others could attain skills and promotions while others were happy plodding on.

[king canary 7,599]

52 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

Anyone who thinks education = intelligence only needs to look at David Cameron. 

Went to Eton and Oxford and came out with a degree in how to trash restaurants and escape the consequences.  Put it into practice by calling the referendum and scuttling off when it didn't work out as planned.

He learned nothing of value because he thought he didn't need to, and there are plenty more like him in the upper echelons of British society. 

Yes, I think that is a key point. By saying education correlates with voting intention I'm not saying 'Labour voters are more intelligent.' I know smart people who never did a degree and morons who've done masters.

[Yellow Fever 3,763]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes, I think that is a key point. By saying education correlates with voting intention I'm not saying 'Labour voters are more intelligent.' I know smart people who never did a degree and morons who've done masters.

Frankly as SC or BW stated its more to do with being challenged, accepting you might be wrong,  and being  'open-minded'. That is what you will get in further education / going to University but it also needs a modicum of intelligence (correlates) as a prerequisite.

Compare and contrast that to somebody who has always lived in a small closed group, their views echoed back to them never challenged but simply reinforced without correction. Closed mind.  Much more difficult to 'break out'. It's the way religion works! Oddly its in this very group that the  'group-think' that Farage raged about that suffers from it most.

In broader terms you are taught to think and put aside assumptions or worse snake oil claims and charms. This is the head vs heart (or faith) challenge. 

[ricardo 7,380]

It might be better for your mental health if you just let it go and got on with your life. Trying to huddle round Brussels to keep warm is a pointless passtime. There is little prospect that they wouldn't have us back and even if they did, what would on offer would never be acceptable. That episode is over, the fire has gone out and won't be re-lit in any conceivable timespan.

Let it go.

Edited January 25, 2023 by ricardo

[Yellow Fever 3,763]

18 minutes ago, ricardo said:

It might be better for your mental health if you just let it go and got on with your life. Trying to huddle round Brussels to keep warm is a pointless passtime. There is little prospect that they wouldn't have us back and even if they did, what would on offer would never be acceptable. That episode is over, the fire has gone out and won't be re-lit in any conceivable timespan.

Let it go.

That isn't what is being discussed. 

[Herman 9,746]

Clearly some aren't poorly educated, no worse than me, just more susceptible to brainwashing/grooming. I'm not sure how this happens but I have noticed it in a few people. Farage/Johnson/CA knew to play on people's "feelings" because they knew it would be hard to overcome people's "feelings" with facts. They turned Brexit into a religion/cult and no matter how many facts are out there the beliefs and faith in the "religion" will be undimmed. Even now with actual evidence to back up the facts some are still not budging.

See Creationism for a pure example of this brainwashing.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,531]

On 24/01/2023 at 17:26, dylanisabaddog said:

Try reading the second post from Yellow Fever above. Kent University did a huge survey and study on the subject. Among other things, they concluded that the average leave voter had an IQ 12% lower than the average remain voter.

But to quote Michael Gove, they're experts so what would they know......

My sister, who is of below average intelligence but very lovely nonetheless, told me quite confidently before the vote - 

It would be the easiest trade deal ever

They had more to lose than us

We would strike trade deals across the world and be richer than ever 

Turkey was going to join the EU and all 70m of them were going to move here

If we didn't leave we would be swamped with Syrians

The EU is undemocratic 

The EU would fall apart when we left. 

 

I debunked all these theories which had been fed to her by Cambridge Analytica on Facebook which is her only news source. Despite the fact that I provided evidence to show her all this was nonsense she voted Leave because she trusted Boris Johnson. She still does...... 

 

I'd missed the link and it doesn't really surprise me that someone has managed to find a correlation; it's probably just as well that a study promoting as fact the idea that Brexit was clever people v stupid people isn't being too widely promoted.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,531]

4 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

That isn't what is being discussed. 

It kind of has degenerated into predominately ideas that have been turned over an awful lot on the other Brexit threads.

Best bit of this thread for me was popular international cuisine in foreign countries...

Edited January 25, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[ricardo 7,380]

16 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It kind of has degenerated into predominately ideas that have been turned over an awful lot on the other Brexit threads.

Surely not😉🤣

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,531]

3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Surely not😉🤣

 

Anyway, now we've established it's best to move on... Dean Smith, anyone?

<runs for cover>

[Yellow Fever 3,763]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It kind of has degenerated into predominately ideas that have been turned over an awful lot on the other Brexit threads.

Best bit of this thread for me was popular international cuisine in foreign countries...

I don't think so.

I put the thread up to pull dylanisabaddog original comment (on IQ  correlations) out of the football thread. I myself don't like the IQ correlation even though I fully accept it's real.

The discussion is really what does this mean as to how people vote in general and why?

If it's easier for you (and the couple of Brexiters here who just jumped on it without much thought) look as others have done at the US situation ... or in extremis gun control there. For all of us looking in it's obvious they need better control ... certainly no need for assault weapons... but in large sections it's a matter of faith beyond logical reason that they can carry such weapons. I'd guess those views correlate with lesser intelligence or education too!

People will study these correlations and the vote for years to come to try to understand what drove Brexit. How else can it be understood?

I ought to add that's exactly what Cambridge Analytica did and do. Know their target audience (yes those correlations again) and fed them what they wanted to hear!

 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[sonyc 5,508]

25 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I don't think so.

I put the thread up to pull dylanisabaddog original comment (on IQ  correlations) out of the football thread. I myself don't like the IQ correlation even though I fully accept it's real.

The discussion is really what does this mean as to how people vote in general and why?

If it's easier for you (and the couple of Brexiters here who just jumped on it without much thought) look as others have done at the US situation ... or in extremis gun control there. For all of us looking in it's obvious they need better control ... certainly no need for assault weapons... but in large sections it's a matter of faith beyond logical reason that they can carry such weapons. I'd guess those views correlate with lesser intelligence or education too!

People will study these correlations and the vote for years to come to try to understand what drove Brexit. How else can it be understood?

 

 

I agree here (and with Herman above). I don't think this particular debate is about Brexit per se, even though it's a good example. It is about belief and faith that influences people. I guess as football fans we all have those attributes - we couldn't go (easily) and support another team! Except the types who aren't football fans anyway.

I believe Brexit is germane as a subject (had to check my spelling there - felt it was with an 'i') if only because of the sheer amount of lies told about it. That unfairness has not taken away my regret about the matter but if anything it has emboldened my antagonism. I strongly dislike any form of unfairness. Brexit feels unfair. It won't all magically resolve itself I realise. I don't feel that the matter should be forgotten completely. I guess it would help enormously of the current government showed more honesty about it to the general public. Until I sense that there is a better government in situ then I will probably want to debate the issue.

It is fascinating why people should vote the way they do and all manner of other things. And I've been interested in the many posts on this thread about education etc. And I find myself in agreement with most. In fact, this morning (strike me down please) I found myself agreeing with some of Ann Widdecombe's thoughts on the NHS!

When we don't talk ...that's when it becomes a problem. We can't give up. We need, very badly, a national conversation about where we are going as a country in a whole number of areas - and that includes Europe. We require a serious and credible government. 

Come the day.

Edited January 25, 2023 by sonyc

[littleyellowbirdie 2,531]

47 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I don't think so.

I put the thread up to pull dylanisabaddog original comment (on IQ  correlations) out of the football thread. I myself don't like the IQ correlation even though I fully accept it's real.

The discussion is really what does this mean as to how people vote in general and why?

If it's easier for you (and the couple of Brexiters here who just jumped on it without much thought) look as others have done at the US situation ... or in extremis gun control there. For all of us looking in it's obvious they need better control ... certainly no need for assault weapons... but in large sections it's a matter of faith beyond logical reason that they can carry such weapons. I'd guess those views correlate with lesser intelligence or education too!

 

My take on it is it's the job of intelligent people who want to be leaders to come up with compelling models of what to do to improve society and to then come up with strong emotional arguments to persuade less intelligent people to follow them and to give them a mandate, else less scrupulous intelligent people will come up with appealing emotional arguments for the less intelligent people to follow them instead for their own benefit.

Naturally that requires understanding the sentiments of the less intelligent people and respecting their limits.

You just don't win political arguments on reason alone and you definitely don't win them by attacking and alienating the people you want to support you by telling them you think they're stupid.

In Brexit, remain largely failed to even try to create any positive emotional narrative. That thought was first put to me by my German friend who took me to the Indian/German fusion restaurant (which gave me food poisoning and had us running around desperately trying to find a public toilet in Frankfurt).

Tony Blair and John Major did a lectern talk on the danger to the Good Friday agreement, but where were the vox pops talking to ordinary people in Northern Ireland about life before the GFA and how a hard border would actually put Northern Irish lives at risk? Where were the interviews with world war 2 veterans about the misery of war? Some things along those lines did come, but only after the referendum, and in nowhere near large enough quantities; George Osborne telling people they'd all be £4,734.53 a year worse off post Brexit was never going to win hearts.

Much as people blame Johnson for swinging it, the margin was close enough that I think a more compelling emotional argument for remain could have been made.

In the gun control debate, I think reluctance over giving up arms mostly revolves around distrust of government, but I like to think that the emotional pull of the repeated slaughtering of children in schools is starting to change opinions.

Overall, the winning side will usually have the lower average IQ because you need the votes of those who aren't smart enough to work it out for themselves to win. That's my own personal theory. Make of it what you will.

Edit: I'd just like to add about how Labour and the Conservatives defeated the Lib Dems over the AV referendum: the yes campaign focused on the benefits of allowing people to vote for their first choice without fear of accidentally letting in the party they disliked most; No, backed by senior Conservative and Labour figures played to emotional arguments focusing on Nick Clegg's personal unpopularity and tugging at heart strings claiming the money spent on electoral reform would result in dead babies and soldiers. We all know which arguments won the day.

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,763]

32 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

My take on it is it's the job of intelligent people who want to be leaders to come up with compelling models of what to do to improve society and to then come up with strong emotional arguments to persuade less intelligent people to follow them and to give them a mandate, else less scrupulous intelligent people will come up with appealing emotional arguments for the less intelligent people to follow them instead for their own benefit.

Naturally that requires understanding the sentiments of the less intelligent people and respecting their limits.

You just don't win political arguments on reason alone and you definitely don't win them by attacking and alienating the people you want to support you by telling them you think they're stupid.

In Brexit, remain largely failed to even try to create any positive emotional narrative. That thought was first put to me by my German friend who took me to the Indian/German fusion restaurant (which gave me food poisoning and had us running around desperately trying to find a public toilet in Frankfurt).

Tony Blair and John Major did a lectern talk on the danger to the Good Friday agreement, but where were the vox pops talking to ordinary people in Northern Ireland about life before the GFA and how a hard border would actually put Northern Irish lives at risk? Where were the interviews with world war 2 veterans about the misery of war? Some things along those lines did come, but only after the referendum, and in nowhere near large enough quantities; George Osborne telling people they'd all be £4,734.53 a year worse off post Brexit was never going to win hearts.

Much as people blame Johnson for swinging it, the margin was close enough that I think a more compelling emotional argument for remain could have been made.

In the gun control debate, I think reluctance over giving up arms mostly revolves around distrust of government, but I like to think that the emotional pull of the repeated slaughtering of children in schools is starting to change opinions.

Overall, the winning side will usually have the lower average IQ because you need the votes of those who aren't smart enough to work it out for themselves to win. That's my own personal theory. Make of it what you will.

 

Quite agree that a more positive argument by remain should of been put forward for those that couldn't take  a purely reasoned view on facts.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Yellow Fever
However, the devil always has the best tunes!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

10 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Quite agree that a more positive argument by remain should of been put forward for those that couldn't take  a purely reasoned view on facts.

I believe the rhetoric just suited their thoughts and beliefs. It was the opportunity to vent their spleens by the ballot box.

[Yellow Fever 3,763]

47 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I believe the rhetoric just suited their thoughts and beliefs. It was the opportunity to vent their spleens by the ballot box.

Yes KG - a large element of (unthinking) protest vote about it. 

[Herman 9,746]

17 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Quite agree that a more positive argument by remain should of been put forward for those that couldn't take  a purely reasoned view on facts.

It's been mentioned before but the usual tory tactics, which had won them a few elections, failed against the people that usually fall for their tactics.

[Herman 9,746]

This is a good thread. It should go in the covid thread but I found it relevant to many things that have been discussed over the years.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Herman

[littleyellowbirdie 2,531]

On 24/01/2023 at 17:26, dylanisabaddog said:

Try reading the second post from Yellow Fever above. Kent University did a huge survey and study on the subject. Among other things, they concluded that the average leave voter had an IQ 12% lower than the average remain voter.

 

Just a follow up. I woke up early this morning, so I thought I'd have a look at the document mentioned having simply taken it on trust that it said what was asserted, but I i didn't see any statements about IQ itself regarding predictors in the Brexit vote, let alone the 12% figure you quoted. Moreover, a search for "12% brexit intelligence" on Google fails to bring any obvious documents supporting the assertion, although this thread on the Pinkun features on page 1 of the results...

What is the source of this claim?

[dylanisabaddog 4,903]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Just a follow up. I woke up early this morning, so I thought I'd have a look at the document mentioned having simply taken it on trust that it said what was asserted, but I i didn't see any statements about IQ itself regarding predictors in the Brexit vote, let alone the 12% figure you quoted. Moreover, a search for "12% brexit intelligence" on Google fails to bring any obvious documents supporting the assertion, although this thread on the Pinkun features on page 1 of the results...

What is the source of this claim?

I do apologise. It was a test to see if people believe what they read on social media without checking. 

Unfortunately, I think you only checked because I told you something you didn't want to hear😂

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/people-who-felt-marginalised-drove-brexit-vote-study-finds

Educational inequality was also highlighted, with support for leave 30 percentage points higher among those with only GCSE qualifications or below than for those with a degree. There was also a geographical divide between higher and lower skilled areas.

Edited January 27, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[littleyellowbirdie 2,531]

55 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I do apologise. It was a test to see if people believe what they read on social media without checking. 

Unfortunately, I think you only checked because I told you something you didn't want to hear😂

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/people-who-felt-marginalised-drove-brexit-vote-study-finds

Educational inequality was also highlighted, with support for leave 30 percentage points higher among those with only GCSE qualifications or below than for those with a degree. There was also a geographical divide between higher and lower skilled areas.

That's an interesting accusation, because the document mentions an awful lot of the observations I've made about the Brexit vote that nobody else seems interested in, in favour of a fixation on branding Brexit voters old and stupid.

The other possibility you should consider in doing your 'social experiments' is that sometimes people do simply engage in discussions in good faith and all your claims of an 'experiment' finish up looking like a convenient cover for lazy thinking on your own part, given that the thrust of this claim is the entire basis of this thread.

Follow up:

This really is unbelievably poor form on your part, especially given the whole subject matter implies a belief in a degree of intellectual superiority on the grounds of personal views on political matters.

Firstly, you didn't make this assertion here; you made it on a thread about Frank Lampard being sacked on the football main discussion thread with the associated link.

Secondly, your assertion prompted Yellow Fever to actually start a whole thread on this claim  in a more appropriate place on the forum using your erroneous link that he clearly accepted in good faith as supporting material, in spite of it making no such claim regarding average IQs of leave and remain voters!

Given that most of the remain supporters who haven't come to terms with what happened do console themselves with this assumption of overall intellectual superiority, is it really a good look to be this sloppy when persisting in perpetuating the unhelpful notion to an audience including some people who clearly did vote to leave the EU, whether they still think it was a good idea or not? It seems to me you're displaying personally a lot of the political ineptitude and lack of emotional intelligence that lost remain the referendum.

Edited January 27, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,903]

59 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's an interesting accusation, because the document mentions an awful lot of the observations I've made about the Brexit vote that nobody else seems interested in, in favour of a fixation on branding Brexit voters old and stupid.

The other possibility you should consider in doing your 'social experiments' is that sometimes people do simply engage in discussions in good faith and all your claims of an 'experiment' finish up looking like a convenient cover for lazy thinking on your own part, given that the thrust of this claim is the entire basis of this thread.

Follow up:

This really is unbelievably poor form on your part, especially given the whole subject matter implies a belief in a degree of intellectual superiority on the grounds of personal views on political matters.

Firstly, you didn't make this assertion here; you made it on a thread about Frank Lampard being sacked on the football main discussion thread with the associated link.

Secondly, your assertion prompted Yellow Fever to actually start a whole thread on this claim  in a more appropriate place on the forum using your erroneous link that he clearly accepted in good faith as supporting material, in spite of it making no such claim regarding average IQs of leave and remain voters!

Given that most of the remain supporters who haven't come to terms with what happened do console themselves with this assumption of overall intellectual superiority, is it really a good look to be this sloppy when persisting in perpetuating the unhelpful notion to an audience including some people who clearly did vote to leave the EU, whether they still think it was a good idea or not? It seems to me you're displaying personally a lot of the political ineptitude and lack of emotional intelligence that lost remain the referendum.

Oh dear. You're missing the point. I made something up to see if anyone believed it. Most either couldn't care less or perhaps they simply accepted it. It proves that people in general accept what they're told on social media. 

Incidentally, this all arose because someone on another thread said Frank Lampard was thick when in actual fact he's a hugely intelligent man. When corrected that person accused intelligent people of sneering at those of lower intelligence. I merely pointed out that the opposite had happened in the lead up to the Brexit referendum. "What do experts know?" was the often uttered phrase. It turns out that they know quite a lot. 

You have focused on one 'fact' and ignored the obvious. The better someone's educational achievements the more likely they were to vote remain and the gap was huge. Numerous studies have come to the same conclusion.

In general, what do you think is the overriding factor in higher educational achievement? I know it's a number of factors but please don't tell me that IQ isn't the biggest. 

[Yellow Fever 3,763]

Actually the above discussion between LYB and DIABD highlights exactly the merits of education.

It appears the 'Kent' paper didn't actually say what DIABD said. Nevertheless he quoted it as a reference and when challenged accepts he got it wrong. Credit for that. Yes I downloaded the paper but was it 30 pages so didn't read it however accepted the DIABD stated result even with stated dislike (even now I suspect there is some truth in the statement nevertheless). I will ignore the spat that it was a 'test'.  Better to just put your hand up. 

So both agree in an open-mind manner and resort ultimately to the facts - the only argument is over the interpretation.

Compare and contrast this with those that don't care about (or can't process) facts, even when clearly and unambiguously laid out before them disproving many a myth - 80M Turks, £350M/week, even 'sovereignty' (hint - we never lost it) - we could go on. What is the old IT phrase - rubbish in rubbish out. No sign of any applied intelligence. Clearly some form of further education correlates with a more questioning approach to what you're told (fed in some cases) - and certainly the lack of, correlates with Brexit.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,531]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Actually the above discussion between LYB and DIABD highlights exactly the merits of education.

It appears the 'Kent' paper didn't actually say what DIABD said. Nevertheless he quoted it as a reference and when challenged accepts he got it wrong. Credit for that. Yes I downloaded the paper but was it 30 pages so didn't read it however accepted the DIABD stated result even with stated dislike (even now I suspect there is some truth in the statement nevertheless). I will ignore the spat that it was a 'test'.  Better to just put your hand up. 

So both agree in an open-mind manner and resort ultimately to the facts - the only argument is over the interpretation.

Compare and contrast this with those that don't care about (or can't process) facts, even when clearly and unambiguously laid out before them disproving many a myth - 80M Turks, £350M/week, even 'sovereignty' (hint - we never lost it) - we could go on. What is the old IT phrase - rubbish in rubbish out. No sign of any applied intelligence. Clearly some form of further education correlates with a more questioning approach to what you're told (fed in some cases) - and certainly the lack of, correlates with Brexit.

Except he doesn't accept he got it wrong; he's stating he deliberately misled people to make them look stupid when they took his assertions in good faith and is now claiming 'gotcha' because someone actually checked.

Personally, I assumed a regular on here would be offering thoughts in good faith. In Dylan's case, I'll know better in the future.

Edited January 27, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,763]

48 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Except he doesn't accept he got it wrong; he's stating he deliberately misled people to make them look stupid when they took his assertions in good faith and is now claiming 'gotcha' because someone actually checked.

Personally, I assumed a regular on here would be offering thoughts in good faith. In Dylan's case, I'll know better in the future.

Don't disagree - I said as much in my original text - but at least we are all accepting what the referenced paper actually says (though I still haven't read it).

[littleyellowbirdie 2,531]

Just now, Yellow Fever said:

Don't disagree - I said as much in my original text - but at least we are all accepting what the referenced paper actually says (though I still haven't read it).

I skimmed it as well. Who has time to read academic documents in great depth merely for the sake of conversation?

For a democratic society to function you need trust in sources of information, because nobody, no matter how clever,  has the hours in the day to fact check every piece of information that crosses their path. Russian propaganda focuses on undermining the credibility of trusted sources alongside discussing myriad alternative conspiracy theories for everything so that swathes of people will be bamboozled and no longer have any idea what they can believe any more.

[horsefly 4,295]

20 hours ago, Herman said:

This is a good thread. It should go in the covid thread but I found it relevant to many things that have been discussed over the years.

I'm seeing a pattern here. The minute you start trying to look like George Best, the minute you start to rant like a drunk George Best.