British public wrong about nearly everything

On a related subject this is pretty interesting:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/

Probably goes some way to explaining how people can be so misinformed but think that they are correct.
Yup, the good old Dunning Kruger effect.

In short, it requires at least some intelligence to recognise any intelligence.

On any given subject, it requires a reasonable amount of research & reading to appreciate both the complexity & number of fields involved within it - without the initial effort people tend to intellectually reduce complex issues into simplistic sound-bites.

Regarding a few comments about the test - assuming the sample was reasonably representative of the population then I'd expect it to give a reasonable indication. The only bias which is immediately obvious is the contact method, not everybody has a home phone they use or are willing/able to respond to this kind of survey.

If you asked the population to pick at random numbers between 1 & 500 the average in the entire population would be very close to 250, but even if you only ask 100 people the average reply would be very close to the same 250 (give or take a 10% variance due to the small population size).

I also find it highly ironic that people who (seem) to know nothing about statistics are also picking holes in a report which says the public are wrong about almost everything.
 
Last edited:
And you really think a bigger survey in person would make any difference.

Before you read the article, could you put a reasonable value to anything, have you studied every area of politics and no the ins and outs of a 10s of thousands of different areas.

Of course not as no one person has the capability of learning that much, let alone the time to do it.


My point was people have immediately accepted these statistics as fact from a news paper article, while saying how people are stupid for believing at face value what the media tells us.

I don't need to be told the 'public' are stupid I deal with them.
 
And you really think a bigger survey in person would make any difference.

Before you read the article, could you put a reasonable value to anything, have you studied every area of politics and no the ins and outs of a 10s of thousands of different areas.

Of course not as no one person has the capability of learning that much, let alone the time to do it.

Well, yes I could put a reasonable values to those questions (certainly much more accurate than the averages provided) as I read good media and take an active interest in current affairs. Most people read terrible newspapers (Mail, Sun etc) and take very little interest in their country.

The solution is education, not some technocrat quasi-dictatorship.
 
My point was people have immediately accepted these statistics as fact from a news paper article, while saying how people are stupid for believing at face value what the media tells us.

I don't need to be told the 'public' are stupid I deal with them.
Ipsos MORI are a reasonably respected research company with a huge amount of experience.

Assuming the data is collected & the report run by a professional body we can have much greater trust in it than selective aspects read out by politicians or newspapers (who never quote sources anyway).

Well, yes I could put a reasonable values to those questions (certainly much more accurate than the averages provided) as I read good media and take an active interest in current affairs. Most people read terrible newspapers (Mail, Sun etc) and take very little interest in their country.

The solution is education, not some technocrat quasi-dictatorship.
A technocratic society doesn't have to be a dictatorship - it can still be peer reviewed & open to challenge - just by people qualified to have an opinion on the subject matter at hand.

Facts & peer reviewed hard data should be the forefront of policy choices, not bigotry, ideology or the wishes of people who have no desire to learn our actual circumstances. With an ethical constitution to ensure the rights & freedoms of the population are met in tandem with social changes. The scientific method may not always be able to tell us what we should do (at a high level) but it will always be able to tell us how we should achieve a given goal.

At most if we did want to keep a democracy - politicians should set the goals, experts should determine the methodology.

For example, if political party A wants to reduce benefits dependency - we should use our scientific understanding of human behaviour to best enact evidence based polices to combat that. What we shouldn't do is enact a number of ideologically based changes which are either in direct contradiction to the evidence or simply unsupported.
 
Last edited:
Well, yes I could put a reasonable values to those questions (certainly much more accurate than the averages provided) as I read good media and take an active interest in current affairs. Most people read terrible newspapers (Mail, Sun etc) and take very little interest in their country.

The solution is education, not some technocrat quasi-dictatorship.

You cannot force education though.
 
I personally think 95% of this forum think they are more intelligent than the rest of the UK. Some comments on here have been nothing but patronising to a regular member of public to say the least.
 
Most people are stupid, look at the tv they watch. This is already been established in fact the politicians rely on people's gullibility and stupidity. That is why labour is always making promising like a late night infomercial sales man. If you vote for me ill get you free fish and chips on Thursdays and ill end bad jobs. All jobs will be high paid and if you want a free house ill sort you out as well. People actually fall for this stuff...
 
I personally think 95% of this forum think they are more intelligent than the rest of the UK. Some comments on here have been nothing but patronising to a regular member of public to say the least.
Well, around 49.9% of the population are most certainly more intelligent than the rest of the UK if you look at it statistically.

Then you can take into account the fact it's a computer technology forum (this will create some uplift) to the base, which leaves around 29.20% of our forum to be the expected population of idiots.

I think that anyone who has time to answer a phone survey is not representative of the British population.
Indeed, that will be one bias.

It's akin to the surveys which is in-fact a study of people not smart enough to dodge somebody with a clipboard from 50 foot.
 
I personally think 95% of this forum think they are more intelligent than the rest of the UK. Some comments on here have been nothing but patronising to a regular member of public to say the least.

But how many of that 95% noticed that the story is from July last year? ;)
 
The mob is fickle, which in essence is what we, the general public, are. I find some episodes of The Simpsons perfectly represent mob mentality, and unfortunately most people will want what is best for them and their given situation, not what is best for the country. You cannot blame people for this, it is a simple element of self preservation.

But it is a fundamental issue with democracy. Add the evident apathy towards politics/politicians and it does not bode well for reasoned decisions during voting. Indeed, I think it is because people are so fed up with politics of late, that parties like UKIP are seeing such growth. I believe people are voting, in protest, for a party not fit to govern because they are so fed up of the 'big 3' parties, which could be argued is even more dangerous than not voting.

I do not for one second think the general public are stupid, but we lack solid and honest information and due to busy lives I think most lack the inclination to sit for hours doing research. So we either tend to believe what we see on the news or read in the newspapers and try to make a reasoned decision from limited (well spun?) information. Or we remain apathetic and just dismiss politics and voting as a waste of time because the serious parties are all the same, and the others are unsuitable because they want to send all the black people to Africa or they want to close all the power stations and have us living in fields. I do think there is an inherent gullability in us, but I think it is born of the unassailable optimism that British people tend to have.

However, we have been let down badly by successive governments which adds to the general disinterest in politics. Certainly tighter press regulation is needed to deal with the trash that gets printed daily, but I also think the politicians have a role to play in minimising spin and being a bit more down to earth and honest. Although I doubt it will happen in our current system or with the current crop of politicians. Everything our politicians do is orchestrated with the intention of looking good and earning votes. It is like watching the x-factor every day of our lives!

The death of conviction politics is lamentable, and I cannot stand the current smarmy hollow politicians we now have. Perhaps if the political community accepted that a bit of backbone and conviction earns more respect than saying what they think people want to hear, we may see a change in the direction our country takes.

I think reconditioning of our general mindset towards politics is needed, and that it should start in our schools. Perhaps if we can re-inforce the importance of reasoned decision making, and instill the importance of making time to research exactly what it is we are voting for, we stand a chance. But, the issue is proving to people that their vote counts, and as we have seen over the last 20 years it does not, not really. Same old story, just a different name in charge wearing a different colour tie. But perhaps this is just indicative of the state the country is in? Whoever gets to rule will be unpopular because the choices facing us are tough. Or is it indicative of a political system that seems to be run with conflicted interests and by people who have shown themselves to be morally questionable and dare I say it, incompetent? Perhaps the two elements go hand in hand?

But the cynic in me feels that keeping the public in the dark, and discouraging political education in schools is to keep the population malleable. What better way to win votes than have a population of people who either have no clue about, or no interest in politics? Then use the media to peddle a specific political agenda to targeted demographic groups in order to whip up a frenzy, and hey presto the politicians have control. For example, the government must love the Daily Fail because it peddles their benefits bashing agenda. It keeps the spotlight firmly on the poor, the dispossesed and the struggling, seemingly blaming them for our ills. Meanwhile, whilst everyones attention is diverted, the private schoolboy millionaire politicians line their own pockets on other peoples misery and laugh all the way to the bank! But because it is accepted in the rule book that they wrote, their behaviour is not wrong. How many times have we heard that gem of moral bankrupcy in the last few years?

So perhaps it is time to get more radical and accept that our current system is a failure? Our entire political and socio-economic landscape is based on a 5 year cycle and thus all of the politics and policy surrounding our lives is transient.

I cannot help feeling like our current systems are counter productive for the 'greater good', and worse for the general population overall. Oh dear, now I am sounding like a communist!! :eek:

But seriously, I think we need to consider changing the basis of our voting system and the type of decision makers we have in parliament, and perhaps look at extending the tenure of a government to try and aid long term stability.

I am not really sure what the answer is. Every society and style of government thus far used in history, has failed. I see no reason why ours will eventually end up any different. But a way to prevent it seems to elude us.

Perhaps the first step along that road is to leave the EU. Honestly I dont know. I can see the good and the bad, but I am not convinced that leaving the EU would be categorically bad for the nations future. Of course, in the short term it would be a disaster, but I can't help feeling that having to comply with Brussels is crippling us and that our future home grown prospects in services, industry and exports would be more versatile and adaptable if we were not living under the weight of imported one size fits all policies.

I am not convinced either way, but I do think if we were to leave the EU the time to do it is not now. I am also convinced that as much as I am disillusioned with current state of politics, voting for UKIP is not the way forward! :p
 
But let's think about this another way how often are politicians right? These are paid individuals who have q career in politics yet they are led by their feelings and not facts.

So is the average punter any worse than the professionals they are paying for?
 
But let's think about this another way how often are politicians right? These are paid individuals who have q career in politics yet they are led by their feelings and not facts.

So is the average punter any worse than the professionals they are paying for?
I totally agree, the problem is on both sides on the fence.

That's why I advocate very strict rules on evidence backed policies to protect the public from incompetent politicians on all sides of the political spectrum.

But how many of that 95% noticed that the story is from July last year? ;)
Are you implying that the average knowledge in the political landscape has changed significantly in the last 10 months?, or that information has a time-stamp attached to it?.
 
Last edited:
At most if we did want to keep a democracy - politicians should set the goals, experts should determine the methodology.

For example, if political party A wants to reduce benefits dependency - we should use our scientific understanding of human behaviour to best enact evidence based polices to combat that. What we shouldn't do is enact a number of ideologically based changes which are either in direct contradiction to the evidence or simply unsupported.

I would vote for a party which uses the scientific method to achieve their goals. But other people may not, so it is our job to persuade them and get the party which uses evidence-based policy elected.

As to the recommendation to use 'experts'. How is it determined whether someone is an 'expert'? In practise you have to use some form of democracy to do this (e.g. peer opinion). And how do you choose those peers? The only sensible (and safe) solution is a population-wide vote.
 
I would vote for a party which uses the scientific method to achieve their goals. But other people may not, so it is our job to persuade them and get the party which uses evidence-based policy elected.

As to the recommendation to use 'experts'. How is it determined whether someone is an 'expert'? In practise you have to use some form of democracy to do this (e.g. peer opinion). And how do you choose those peers? The only sensible (and safe) solution is a population-wide vote.
Peers would have be decided by independent bodies, from a pool of people with the most relevant experience & skills in a given area.

The problem is, we have people voting on solutions - not issue or problems.

The people really want a lower crime rate, then a political party may say - "Vote for me, I will increase prison sentences by 25%!".

Instead of - "Vote for me, I will reduce crime by using the most effective methods supported by the evidence - which may include.

Longer sentences for those incapable of rehabilitation.
More focus on ensuring people leave prison free of mental health issues.
A much greater focus on rehabilitation to reduce the net crime rate."

I can see why they do it, the top one appeals to people with poor reasoning skills & those who lack the patience to read three lines before voting - but the question is, when people like that vote - does it undermine the democratic system?.
 
Well, around 49.9% of the population are most certainly more intelligent than the rest of the UK if you look at it statistically.

Then you can take into account the fact it's a computer technology forum (this will create some uplift) to the base, which leaves around 29.20% of our forum to be the expected population of idiots.

29% you say


27.98% say they will vote ukip in that thread ahaha :D:D:D:D:p
 
Back
Top Bottom