It seems like a reasonable thing to say (and I used to say it) that Leave voters "should have done their research".

But the problem quite specifically in many cases was that they *did* "do their research".

The issue is not their "laziness" so much as their research methods. 1/
A neighbour explained that she and her (retired lawyer) husband had voted Leave because "he did the research and decided it was the right thing."

The research in that case was reading The Telegraph.

But for many more the research will have been done online. 2/
The problem with "online research" is it will tend to send us towards the "evidence" and "arguments" we are predisposed to want to hear. (Exactly as with our Telegraph reader neighbours.)

What it leads to is the amplification of our prejudices, not the questioning of them. 3/
The internet is designed that way. It insulates us from the information we don't want to hear.

Leave voters will have been driven down that path that amplified the simplicity of the question and kept away from the path that emphasised its complexity. 4/
Simplicity is of course a lot more appealing.

"How hard can it be? Don't blind me with science. It's perfectly sensible for me to trust my gut." 5/
They will have found the path that emphasised sovereignty, rather than the path that highlighted the problems of trade barriers. 6/
Of course as Leave voters found what wanted, they were led to lots more of the same. And a lot of that was deliberately malicious and misleading. It was planted there to trap them.

So in a sense the more diligent a Leave voter was, the more they were misled. 7/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr Simon Ubsdell

Dr Simon Ubsdell Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SimonUbsdell

13 Oct
Hands up anyone who *didn't* repeatedly put on record, at the time and in the clearest terms, that the Johnson regime was planning to win an election on the back of the oven-ready WA and then trash it later.

It was obvious to anyone who listened closely to what was happening.
Last May, Baker wrote in the Critic: “He [Cummings] said we should vote for the original withdrawal agreement without reading it, on the basis Michael Gove articulated: we could change it later. But now with him in power, we are putting in a modest border in the Irish Sea.”
Last week, Mark Francois, the current chair of the ERG, told the Guardian they had signed the deal knowing it was “a risk” as the protocol in their view was flawed but there was a greater prize at stake – the UK’s exit from the EU.
Read 4 tweets
26 Sep
Jonathan Franzen, eh?

The most over-rated writer in the history of the written word is still a thing?

Dang. That's my Sunday ruined.

theguardian.com/books/2021/sep…
@brokenbottleboy: "If there were a global shortage of Jonathan Franzen interviews, I don’t think desperate people would be queuing up to get their hands on a few quotes."
Franzen is basically just Lionel Shriver: less obnoxious perhaps, but every bit as tiresome and self-obsessed.
Read 4 tweets
22 Jul
Any Brexitist using the phrase "We did not know" needs to be strapped to a rocket and fired into space, and not in a fun, tourist sense.

"We know exactly what Brexit means" was the entirety of their tiresome shtick for five miserable years.
Morever they won an election explicitly on the basis of the self-evident certainty of what Brexit meant.

"We did not know" is thus an admission of fraud.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(