'Leave EU means...' WHAT?! Britons ask Google after results declared Woke up with a nagging feeling you may have done something last night you shouldn’t? You aren’t alone, it seems. Following reports of Brexiters regretting their vote to take the UK out of the European Union, Google has revealed a hunt for online answers about the EU and what it meant exactly to leave assaulted its search …
I heard someone say they would vote to leave because a pregnant foreign woman got seen at the doctors surgery before they did and that once the UK left the EU these things wouldn't happen anymore. If nothing else we've found out that most of the country is a bit touched in the head.
This post has been deleted by its author
>> "half the country has a below-average IQ"
And it's not just IQ, either! It's everything!!
It's extremely frustrating, this. No matter what one does to better things -- education, welfare, etc. No matter what efforts are taken, it still always seems that half the population remains below average.
I'm telling you: the system is rigged...
"Actually, half the country has a below-MEDIAN IQ. #math"
this would only matter if the distribution of numeric IQ values is uneven. In a large enough sample, that's unlikely.
Interestingly enough, to someone at a near-genius level (or higher - average Reg reader probably), EVERYBODY ELSE (who is NOT significantly above average/median) appears "about the same as one another".
/me leaves flowers for Algernon. Poor Algernon. he was a *really* smart mouse. Too bad the 'other mice' rejected him [that's a metaphor, yeah]. If he were a dumb mouse, they'd have still rejected him, but would've felt sorry about it later. Equally 'out of touch' on both ends of the intelligence spectrum.
"Actually, half the country has a below-MEDIAN IQ. #math"
Actually, IQ has a symmetrical normal distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviaton of 15. Always. In every population. because that's how it is defined. As with all such distributions, the median is equal to the mean. (And to the mode, for that matter.)
# psychology
PS: learn how to spell "maths".
"What's worse, half the country has a below-average IQ!"
I've long maintained that right to vote should be subject TO TAKING A FUCKING EXAM. You know, to prove that you have any idea of what's actually what. Sadly, so far, no "democracies" seem to be interested in the concept... :(
"I've long maintained that right to vote should be subject TO TAKING A FUCKING EXAM. You know, to prove that you have any idea of what's actually what. Sadly, so far, no "democracies" seem to be interested in the concept... :("
Whilst it's wonderful to imagine that this could improve the system, what would in fact happen would be that the people in charge of examinations would exercise their control to manipulate the voting demographics. In spite of feeling a mixture of anger, pity, contempt, and loathing at the people who voted to leave, to do this would fundamentally compromise the integrity of our democracy. It is thoroughly and entirely wrong, just as limiting parenthood on the basis of IQ is.
Half the UK is below the median IQ for the UK. I've read that globally, the "average" IQ has been steadily declining, and is now below the established "average." I blame technology for short circuiting natural selection.
The UK are not alone. The Brexit phenomenon is in play in the US, chez les Trump supporters. Hopefully Brexit will be a wake-up call for the US and the electorate will realize that "Holy ----! We could wind up with the village idiot as President."
I still maintain that Cameron is a stupid dick for believing he could pull through without the votes from 16-17 year olds, I don't know how many 16-17 year olds there are but if the same % went remain as 18-24's the result may have been a bit different. Didn't want to do it because of cost? Cost him his job that did, what is he, middle management?
/edit - whilst I'm here.......
never mind me edit, found an article.
"without the votes from 16-17 year olds"
Maybe because they might also demand the right to be able to drive a car, buy a drink, or fags, or open a bank account or get a tattoo or make a will or take a selfie of their own arse or or.....
In the framework of what we trust 16,17 years olds with giving them a vote is ridiculous, only suggested by politicians desperate to try to cover up the huge apathy most of the electorate show towards them.
There was no real reason the young should have voted more to remain than leave, you think their parents and grand parents want the worst for them? They are just more naive with a different kind of ignorance.
"Maybe because they might also demand the right to be able to drive a car, buy a drink, or fags, or open a bank account or get a tattoo or make a will or take a selfie of their own arse or or.....
In the framework of what we trust 16,17 years olds with giving them a vote is ridiculous, only suggested by politicians desperate to try to cover up the huge apathy most of the electorate show towards them."
16 & 17 year olds had a vote in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and anarchy didn't ensue .. maybe because they could already do some of the things you list (drive a car, open a bank account).
C'mon, 16/7 year olds can get laid, get married, join the army, pay income tax, change their name etc. (at 16 can ride a moped, 17 125/car), and in 2 years time when we leave the EU the 16 year olds who were denied a vote will be 18 years old, is it really fair they were not allowed a vote on an irreversible decision which will affect them for the next 60+ years of their life?
There are around 4m 15-19 year olds, so lets say 2m 16-18 year olds, sounds fair, reasonable? If we go for a high turn out of 80%, thats 1.6m voters, they are more likely to vote remain, lets go with 80% again (might be higher), that's 1,280,000 "Remain" votes, 16,141,241 + 1,280,000 = 17,421,241, vote Remain wins by 10,499 votes (assuming 2m voters and 80% turnout/remain).
I'm seriously concerned how it is being portrayed that the youth voted remain and the older generation voted leave.
How exactly is this known and how was it known immediately after the result? Why is it that the news is sill pushing this idea?
Let me explain, we all know how the vote is done you can watch them on the TV, ballots are sorted into piles then those piles are added to the tally and the result is declared. To know which age range voted for what you would have had to record every voter ID on the ballot then collate them for the whole country.
Impossible given the time scales.
Unless someone wants to tell me how the BBC could give exact % immediately after the result and polls don't count as it being pushed as fact, plus the polls were wrong in the first place.
Okay, normally we have exit polls - that's people collecting volunteered data at exit of the polling station. This then gives a national sample and reasonable results.
This time there were no exit polls (was looking for them and surprised they weren't there) so some groups went out onto the streets and did a poll there. This netted the figures people quote - that 62% of the 18-24's who voted, voted in (or 72% according to another poll), but the numbers sampled are low.
In the one case, 1,600(ish) people were polled and only those who were willing to answer were counted towards either vote. I can't remember if it was 1,900 or 19,000 for the other poll - the number was given, but it was (very) small print. Neither sets of figures seemed to add up, though, so I doubt they were really accurate or representative of how people did vote. For example, a straw poll here at work had more 'Out' votes from the younger workers and 'In' votes from the older, but that was an incredibly small sample size.
If you go by the figures from polls into who voted what, only 25% of the 18-24yr olds voted.
The polls show that older people voted more than younger people, and younger people voted in more than older people. So sure, the 16-17 yr olds might vote more favourably to remain, but they'd do so in smaller numbers.
That's if you believe the polls and if you think the trends would continue. More likely they'd vote 'out' in greater numbers as it's the rebel thing to do, and they're still at the tail end of the 'rebel' years. They wouldn't have to deal with the fallout until it's mostly sorted (in their view). But that's just the flip side spin.
Having lead us up the strait of Messina to the waters directly between Scylla and Charybdis, our brave captain declared "It's all the fault of the helmsman!" and promptly abandoned ship as the rest of us were drawn into the maelstrom.
It's not just Cameron though. The whole bloody government should be tried for treason for putting the country in harms way like this.
Some twat called Adam (BBC News) voted to leave but was shocked that the PM resigned and we are on the way out of the EU. He somehow thought his vote would not count. Why give adult decisions to idiots like him who don't understand how voting works?
Two people at work have literally given similar answers, you know how you are supposed to be polite to people at work, it was hard.
I could except if they voted leave (I was remain) for reasons thats democracy after all, but because they are fuckwits, and now they are having second thoughts, one even said I should have looked into it before voting, I find it somewhat unforgiveable.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
