Here's the link again:

http://www.essex.ac.uk/research/showcase/why-britain-really-voted-to-leave-the-european-union

Hello Foxy,

For me it is the conclusion of the study rather than the actual result of the referendum that I find interesting:

" what our results do imply is that misinformation about the referendum could have complicated decision-making, especially for people with low cognitive ability.”

That is a very bold statement.

Regardless of what some might say perception is not reality.

Misinformation whether as a result of lack of knowledge or manipulation is still misinformation.

Quoting a U.K. fisher from an article this year:
"Believing evocative memories of trawlers departing for distant seas might be reclaimed, Waddy (the Fisher) voted for Brexit. He said he now felt betrayed by politicians who extoled the benefits of leaving the EU but then failed to deliver.

“I wish I never,” he sighed. “They told us everything that we wanted to hear.”

Unfortunately, this person was manipulated to believe misinformation.

I do not think this reflects on the Fishers cognitive ability but it does illustrate that perception is not reality.

A very hard lesson to learn.

Good Morning WTF,

In any complex realm there are heaps of issues and
an infinite number of ways to think about them.
Yet many of our news outlets, social media
commentators, academics, and others look at things
from a one-dimensional point of view.

The labels and concepts that many use to discuss
things and think about them are misleading, causing
widespread misunderstanding and hostility. It would
help if we realized that there are thousands of issues
and an infinite number of ways to think about them.

If you go to the original paper (always good practice) you'll find how they arrived at the cognitive ability numbers. Its not surprising that WTF and the people he relied on don't actually cover what would seem to be the crux of the assertions.

Basically they gave the subjects a quick 5 question test which included things like counting backswords from 100 by 7. These sort of questions are often used to determine if there is a requirement to further investigate potential dementia in a patient but would never be relied on in a clinical sense as a final determinant. Yet that's what they did.

As with much study in the social sciences, this looks very much like a conclusion looking for supporting data. Reach the desired conclusion then go and find some data to support it.

WTF?

mhaze seems to be confused again when he says:

"WTF and the people he relied on don't actually cover what would seem to be the crux of the assertions."

I'm not relying on them for anything at all - apart from a discussion starter.

I have simply stated that I find the conclusion to be interesting and indeed bold I didn't show support for their conclusion.

I hoped to get others opinions and perhaps broaden the conservation which is exactly what has happened.

I continue to enjoy reading about how people make decisions on topics of interest and this is no different

"mhaze seems to be confused again"

I'm not confused. I completely understand what you're doing. I just enjoy exposing it.