The index of Ignorance- Beyond the name and shame are our politics thus totally stupid?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

A recent polling by Ipsos Mori worldwide has revealed that basically, on average people are thick (Suprise suprise).

Starting with the most informed and moving down to most ignorant on current 'hot topic' political issues:

1)Sweden (I wasn't surprised here actually)
2)Germany (Again...efficient!)
3)Japan
4)Spain
5) UK (I'm surprised we're not lower!)
6)Australia
7)Belgium
8)Canada (I blame the whole dual linguistic thang)
9) France (Smarting from Germany and the UK's position no doubt- economy or reality the French just can't seem to keep up... topical.)
10)Hungary
11)Poland
12)South Korea
13)US
14) Italy

But saying that, when looking at the figures in all honesty, no one really came off that well 'most accurate' in this case (Sweden) still had a large margin of error in the differences between citizen's perspectives and what the actual figures were.

Highly recommend a look:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...hing?CMP=fb_gu

Now a case in point to see what i'm about to try and put forward:

On immigration, British people think on average that immigrants make up 24.4% of the population when it is actually about 13%, according to the 2011 census.
According to Ipsos Mori’s political monitor from September, 30% of British voters identified asylum and immigration as one of the issues that would be very important to them come next May’s elections. This puts immigration, alongside the economy and the NHS, at the top of voters’ concerns. The 14 countries surveyed all overestimated immigration to a certain degree.

So as you can see none of the states for this particular one (or any other!) came off well really, but that's just the issue. Immigration in the UK is one of THE hot political topics that everyone seems concerned about, it indeed is one of the major rallying cards for politicians from all parties (not just the right-wing UKIP and revitalized Tory rhetoric)- So it's been made up to be such a huge problem, and basically the key to winning votes blah blah...

But actually, you look at the real figure and you see just how much less of an issue it really should be compared to other areas. Basically a woefully ill informed republic have through their own (and very bad in my view media reporting and influences) created this be all and end all mountain (No jobs around because the foreigners took it etc)- and while indeed perhaps immigration could be more targeted, it's not the apocalyptic issue many see it to be.

And yet because the average member of public has such a well...wrong...view on it's importance and extent, politicians are having to pander to this extreme vision in their politics that actually...just isn't there, but none the less they have to act like it is in essence because it's (Wrongfully) such a big public concern.

Now i don't know about you guys, but i'd say something is seriously wrong when this has to happen? I understand it's a democracy, but the extent to which that people are ill informed and in their mind (or have been told by the media) could potentially have very dire consequences long term- for instance by having an inflated notion of immigration, people run the risk of promoting/ turning politicians into more and more extreme measures to try and show some progress on something that's not really having such a detrimental effect on the country as is commonly perceived (i.e. capping all immigration perhaps, or slimming quotas thread thin)- which arguably will bring the UK's ageing population issue to the fore in the long term.

What do you guys thing anyway? What might be the remedy for this? Especially as we're not just talking about a UK problem here, but pretty much all states surveyed came of really quite badly. Is the public (through media sources) possibly having a detrimental effect on the running of state and it's priorities?

From reading this i'm rather feeling now that i can totally understand the UK's political establishment's reluctance to hold an in/out referendum on the EU, If your average voter is so prone to over-exaggeration/ ill informed/ influenced by a 'favourite' media source to such an extent- then i wouldn't trust them to be able to properly decide the economic and political fate of the UK for generations to come!

Another source on the same thing, but it goes quite well to highlight the further issues of ignorance:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-9825116.html

British people think that there are twice as many immigrants in the country than is really the case – and four times as many Muslims, according to a new survey by Ipsos Mori.The research, carried out by an online survey of approximately 1,000 people aged 16 to 64, reveals that as a nation we hugely overestimate certain numbers, believing that one in five people in the UK are Muslims (21 per cent) when the actual figure is five per cent (one in twenty). By contrast, we underestimate the number of Christians in Britain – believing that just 39 per cent identify with the religion, when the real figure is 59 per cent.


And when it comes to immigration – which was overestimated by all of the 14 countries surveyed, to some degree – we think that immigrants make up 24.4 per cent of the population, when in fact it is actually 13 per cent.

The 'Islamic take over' as i see much purported by many of the right-wing camp, proven here to be total bs. Basically anyone who feels that Islam is 'over-running' the UK is woefully misinformed and ignorant as to the actual extent- and yet again, this exact thing is a major political issue (UKIP is arguably build up as a backlash by people wishing to safeguard traditional British values, which they feel are under threat...from something that doesn't exist as they see it)

Immigration again is mentioned. And ohh goody, this guy seems to have put the point i'm trying to make far better than i did previously:

These kinds of misconceptions present “clear issues for informed public debate and policy-making”, said Bobby Duffy, managing director of Ipsos Mori social research institute, who pointed out that politicians are primed to react to voter perceptions, rather than actual data.

So we have arguably a major inherent problem on our hands, one that potentially could lead us to disaster long term.

Public priorities may well be different if we had a clearer view of the scale of immigration and the real incidence of teenage mothers,” he said.“People also underestimate ‘positive’ behaviours like voting, which may be important if people think it is more ‘normal’ not to vote than it actually is.”
The research backs this up – according to the Perils of Perception survey, people in the UK believe that just 49 per cent of the electorate voted in the last general election, when the official turnout was in fact 66 per cent.
Misconceptions about teenage pregnancy are also rife, with Britons guessing that one in six (16 per cent) of girls aged between 15 and 19 give birth each year, when the real figure is just three per cent.

So what do you guys feel about this? Are the ignorant masses (myself included here in all honesty, i can't be up to speed on everything ) a danger to the state by putting emphasis and political prioritising on issues that are either negligible or indeed aren't as important as perhaps some other topics. Indeed we're looking at the 'rise of the right' in the UK based on mostly...complete crap it seems (Though i'm favour of breaking the two party dead-lock with others).

What's more though, who do you hold responsible for the ill-informed nature of most people on political issues? And how could this be corrected?

Is it the persons fault themselves- perhaps a disinterest or ignorance, or a case of hearing it enough it must be true? Should we be educating ourselves better? Is it the media's fault for quite frankly some very bias reporting on issues, slants being used or simply one or two key issues repeated over and over on the news- is this influencing and shaping our complete lack of correct information on these issues? Or is the news pandering to what the audience wants?

As to how on earth politicians might better educate us on these issues though and the realities, i'm not sure in all honesty. The UK political establishment isn't exactly the most trusted of institutions, and perhaps that's the problem, since people are far more liable to trust their chosen favourite media outlet (Who ironically usually have more of an agenda and bias than state government). It's a very interesting scenario we're in.

[hellheaven1987]

It is government's fault; one of government's responsibility is to constantly, repeatly mentions those data to fellow citizens and reminds them where they can access all those data. Furthermore, it is also government's duty to simplify those data into understandable form so common people can read it (in fact, purposely present a large, boring, unorganized data set in a report in order to distract reader's attention is one of techniques presenters often use to camouflage important points of presentation).

[mongrel]

It is government's fault; one of government's responsibility is to constantly, repeatly mentions those data to fellow citizens and reminds them where they can access all those data. Furthermore, it is also government's duty to simplify those data into understandable form so common people can read it (in fact, purposely present a large, boring, unorganized data set in a report in order to distract reader's attention is one of techniques presenters often use to camouflage important points of presentation).

The case in point being the current immigration policy. They know full well that they can't control numbers if there is no restriction on EU migration but they continue to bleat on about this so called migration cap .

[Hobbes]

It's all working as intended, then. Politicians stand to lose the more informed the citizens are. Ignorant people are not a threat to the state, they are what keeps the whole thing together.

[Sire Brenshar]

It's all working as intended, then. Politicians stand to lose the more informed the citizens are. Ignorant people are not a threat to the state, they are what keeps the whole thing together.

You know, in actual reality the opposite is true. People who are educated actually understand the government and their actions.

When you say these things do you actually think upon them?

[Heathen Hammer]

You know, in actual reality the opposite is true. People who are educated actually understand the government and their actions.

When you say these things do you actually think upon them?

I think you are confusing wishful thinking with, well, reality.
As in:
People should be educated so they understand how their political system works and can control it.
However, politicians benefit from ignorance, because then they can exploit population's stupidity by taking actions that benefit them and selected few at population's expense.

[Hobbes]

You know, in actual reality the opposite is true. People who are educated actually understand the government and their actions.

When you say these things do you actually think upon them?

Why would the elite want people to understand how things work and act in their own interest?

[Sire Brenshar]

Why would the elite want people to understand how things work and act in their own interest?

I'd wager because whatever you consider to be the 'elite' are mostly human too.

Otherwise what exactly do you believe state run and private secondary education to be?

Yeah, slightly social-darwinist people on the political-center who read the guardian and watch house of cards and think its hip to be in on this.

In on what? I take it you think yourself to be highly educated on politics? Please.

[Hobbes]

I'd wager because whatever you consider to be the 'elite' are mostly human too.

What an amazingly ignorant view of the world. Do you really think that everyone's looking out for each other just because we're all human?

Otherwise what exactly do you believe state run and private secondary education to be?

Oppressive institutions aiming to perpetuate the cultural hegemony of the ruling class.

[hellheaven1987]

You know, in actual reality the opposite is true. People who are educated actually understand the government and their actions.

Regardless how education a person is if he/she has insufficient information he/she can never act properly.

[Thorn777]

People who are educated actually understand the government and their actions.

Yeah, slightly social-darwinist people on the political-center who read the guardian and watch house of cards and think its hip to be in on this.

[Nicov55]

Is the public (through media sources) possibly having a detrimental effect on the running of state and it's priorities?

Obviously. A least i can speak for my country, France.
For 4 days in a row now, the media are only talking about a young guy that died during a protest. He was among a group of ultra violent protesters and it appears he was at the wrong place at the wrong time and his death was accidental.

NOW....it seems it just became the alpha and the omega of national politics. The left wing parties are tearing apart and the opposition is not playing it's role, prefering ploting against each other in order to know who will become the next Caliph.

My point is that there is clearly a problem regarding the hierarchy of information. Is there not more important topics than that? Like for example...let's say...the very serious economic situation?
Last week it was the Total Petroleum company's Boss death. Next week it will be some scandal about some football player.

The Media have a despicable role by diverting people from real issues otherwise the pressure on the government would be a lot stronger and the necessary policies and reforms might at last be implemented.

[Abdülmecid I]

Now i don't know about you guys, but i'd say something is seriously wrong when this has to happen? I understand it's a democracy, but the extent to which that people are ill informed and in their mind (or have been told by the media) could potentially have very dire consequences long term- for instance by having an inflated notion of immigration, people run the risk of promoting/ turning politicians into more and more extreme measures to try and show some progress on something that's not really having such a detrimental effect on the country as is commonly perceived (i.e. capping all immigration perhaps, or slimming quotas thread thin)- which arguably will bring the UK's ageing population issue to the fore in the long term.

It works the opposite way, too. Politicians use immigration to panick their voters and manipulate them more easily.

[conon394]

@Dante Von Hespburg

While I don't disagree the Media is woefully bad a providing information, of following stories long term, and not tossing out talking heads to news a sort of entertainment sport etc.

However that being said polls have their own problems in that they often provide a narrow range of answer options. Take survey's unemployment question (for the US in this case) it asks if you know about what the unemployment rate is... Now I'll grant it seems like not much of an assumption to understand what is meant is the specific official statistic (and National) - but that still has to implied.

More importantly which number? I mean if you are in Detroit you likely hear ~18% unemployment in the City and ~8% in the State and I think its not unreasonable to suggest those number are more import to the locals. Also in the US again there is reasonably good reporting on the what official numbers miss - discouraged workers and the under employed. Beyond that is the issue of say inflated numbers say the why Ivy league law schools inflate their post graduation employment rates by counting any possible work like temping at legal firm as employment (in law). Or for example consider news comparing Costco to Walmart (a much larger overall employer) on issues like wages, unpaid overtime and time card manipulation, cutting health care etc (I let you guess the bad guy in each).

Really I am not sure it is an uniformed answer to reject the nominally correct ~6% answer for the US and if that is a signal of ill informed public.

edit:

the basic quiz is here

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/_assets/p...uiz/index.html

[Denny Crane!]

@Dante Von Hespburg

While I don't disagree the Media is woefully bad a providing information, of following stories long term, and not tossing out talking heads to news a sort of entertainment sport etc.

However that being said polls have their own problems in that they often provide a narrow range of answer options. Take survey's unemployment question (for the US in this case) it asks if you know about what the unemployment rate is... Now I'll grant it seems like not much of an assumption to understand what is meant is the specific official statistic (and National) - but that still has to implied.

More importantly which number? I mean if you are in Detroit you likely hear ~18% unemployment in the City and ~8% in the State and I think its not unreasonable to suggest those number are more import to the locals. Also in the US again there is reasonably good reporting on the what official numbers miss - discouraged workers and the under employed. Beyond that is the issue of say inflated numbers say the why Ivy league law schools inflate their post graduation employment rates by counting any possible work like temping at legal firm as employment (in law). Or for example consider news comparing Costco to Walmart (a much larger overall employer) on issues like wages, unpaid overtime and time card manipulation, cutting health care etc (I let you guess the bad guy in each).

Really I am not sure it is an uniformed answer to reject the nominally correct ~6% answer for the US and if that is a signal of ill informed public.

edit:

the basic quiz is here

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/_assets/p...uiz/index.html

I usually love a Dante inspired thread but if that basic poll is the basis then the basis is crap.

I quickly flew through it, and astounded to consider that I would thought ignorant for getting the average age of a child born today as being 83 instead of the correct answer of 80, I mean its pretty close. Also I think you'll find that is the CURRENT life expectancy, god knows what it will be for a child born today.

So yeah bit of an odd one. Very tiny variances in a lot of the questions.

[IZob]

Topic reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhLqPfAylF4

[anant]

Political ignorance in democratic polities is the inevitable result of a combination of factors, namely a)the rapid rise in living standards across the 1st world and across the elites of the 3rd world since WW2 b)the emergence of a consumer model of economics, where leisure and luxury become more important to growth than technical skills or work ethic, c)the emergence of the internet, with it's incredible number of fora, which now provide a sort of replacement for real political engagement(we're all here, aren't we?) with the government and other institutions, and finally I think d)the rise of intra/supra-national economic entities divorced from political debate and un-democratic in their structures.
Lets look at them 1 by 1;
a) A rise in living standards traditionally means the end of mass parties, and there is probably no exception to this fact...for once a person achieves a certain level of security for his/her livelihood, politics begin to become of secondary interest. In democratic countries tied to the vote, it is near impossible for politicians to take an unpopular stand, and thus the well-to-do are fairly sure that no one is going to reverse their basic comfort, thus again their disconnection from politics.
b) Consumerism, at it's core means that you could be a total idiot/antisocial/dysfunctional/delusional/depressive/angry/selfish etc. etc. dickhead, but as long as you spend money and/or draw credit, you contribute to economic growth. As an economic policy, it is perhaps the first one to have zero political connotations (even free-markets require, at the very least, powerful governments to ensure that they ARE free), and also it is a psychological device to reward personal consumption, thus satisfying (in advertising parlence) a need or (in reality) a greed. Those caught up in this process, and rich enough to participate in it are therefore more likely to turn a-political, or to turn politics into a 'consumerist' evaluation ("Why'd you vote for Obama?"..."'cause he's cool dawg, he's black!").
c)We're all here aren't we? 50 years ago, I'd be talking bout this stuff at a tea stall in my country, engaging with people across classes, face-to-face(I still do sometimes, but then, I wouldn't call myself politically ignorant). While the internet does provide a remarkable scope for interaction that no tea stall could ever provide, a major downside of internet forums is the narrowness of the slice of society participating on them. It's worth remembering that billions don't have the internet, and it's mostly these billions who are affected directly by political decisions. Thus, one can argue, the internet is in fact a divisive element in the political community of a country, very much a thing of the haves, and not really of the have-nots. So those who have, are naturally ignorant of the political tendencies of those who have-not.
d) This point doesn't really need explanation...large corporate entities that undermine democratic politics globally erode the faith of people in the effectiveness of their governments (usually an accurate feeling), thus elimanating political interest in the classes. Who cares about politics if it doesn't matter anyway?
Sadly, none of this is going away anytime soon...so I think total political ignorance (in fact, indifference) for the elite and middle classes is a given in the near future...only those who have nothing will engage in ACTUAL politics, street by street and village by village. The disturbing thing is, traditionally when elites have become a-political and complacent, the poor tend to suffer disproportionately, and with no political connection between the classes, revolution remains the only way forward. So ignore politics in your first world countries at your own peril, because sooner or later, a blowback will come.

[sabaku_no_gaara]

I had 6 out of 9

I mistook the age at which the average Belgian will die, the amount of people over 65 (more than I thought), and the amount of people who voted (also more than I assumed)

A recent polling by Ipsos Mori worldwide has revealed that basically, on average people are thick (Suprise suprise).

Starting with the most informed and moving down to most ignorant on current 'hot topic' political issues:

1)Sweden (I wasn't surprised here actually)
2)Germany (Again...efficient!)
3)Japan
4)Spain
5) UK (I'm surprised we're not lower!)
6)Australia
7)Belgium
8)Canada (I blame the whole dual linguistic thang)
9) France (Smarting from Germany and the UK's position no doubt- economy or reality the French just can't seem to keep up... topical.)
10)Hungary
11)Poland
12)South Korea
13)US
14) Italy

But saying that, when looking at the figures in all honesty, no one really came off that well 'most accurate' in this case (Sweden) still had a large margin of error in the differences between citizen's perspectives and what the actual figures were.

Highly recommend a look:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...hing?CMP=fb_gu

Now a case in point to see what i'm about to try and put forward:



So as you can see none of the states for this particular one (or any other!) came off well really, but that's just the issue. Immigration in the UK is one of THE hot political topics that everyone seems concerned about, it indeed is one of the major rallying cards for politicians from all parties (not just the right-wing UKIP and revitalized Tory rhetoric)- So it's been made up to be such a huge problem, and basically the key to winning votes blah blah...

But actually, you look at the real figure and you see just how much less of an issue it really should be compared to other areas. Basically a woefully ill informed republic have through their own (and very bad in my view media reporting and influences) created this be all and end all mountain (No jobs around because the foreigners took it etc)- and while indeed perhaps immigration could be more targeted, it's not the apocalyptic issue many see it to be.

And yet because the average member of public has such a well...wrong...view on it's importance and extent, politicians are having to pander to this extreme vision in their politics that actually...just isn't there, but none the less they have to act like it is in essence because it's (Wrongfully) such a big public concern.

Now i don't know about you guys, but i'd say something is seriously wrong when this has to happen? I understand it's a democracy, but the extent to which that people are ill informed and in their mind (or have been told by the media) could potentially have very dire consequences long term- for instance by having an inflated notion of immigration, people run the risk of promoting/ turning politicians into more and more extreme measures to try and show some progress on something that's not really having such a detrimental effect on the country as is commonly perceived (i.e. capping all immigration perhaps, or slimming quotas thread thin)- which arguably will bring the UK's ageing population issue to the fore in the long term.

What do you guys thing anyway? What might be the remedy for this? Especially as we're not just talking about a UK problem here, but pretty much all states surveyed came of really quite badly. Is the public (through media sources) possibly having a detrimental effect on the running of state and it's priorities?

From reading this i'm rather feeling now that i can totally understand the UK's political establishment's reluctance to hold an in/out referendum on the EU, If your average voter is so prone to over-exaggeration/ ill informed/ influenced by a 'favourite' media source to such an extent- then i wouldn't trust them to be able to properly decide the economic and political fate of the UK for generations to come!

Another source on the same thing, but it goes quite well to highlight the further issues of ignorance:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-9825116.html



The 'Islamic take over' as i see much purported by many of the right-wing camp, proven here to be total bs. Basically anyone who feels that Islam is 'over-running' the UK is woefully misinformed and ignorant as to the actual extent- and yet again, this exact thing is a major political issue (UKIP is arguably build up as a backlash by people wishing to safeguard traditional British values, which they feel are under threat...from something that doesn't exist as they see it)

Immigration again is mentioned. And ohh goody, this guy seems to have put the point i'm trying to make far better than i did previously:



So we have arguably a major inherent problem on our hands, one that potentially could lead us to disaster long term.



So what do you guys feel about this? Are the ignorant masses (myself included here in all honesty, i can't be up to speed on everything ) a danger to the state by putting emphasis and political prioritising on issues that are either negligible or indeed aren't as important as perhaps some other topics. Indeed we're looking at the 'rise of the right' in the UK based on mostly...complete crap it seems (Though i'm favour of breaking the two party dead-lock with others).

What's more though, who do you hold responsible for the ill-informed nature of most people on political issues? And how could this be corrected?

Is it the persons fault themselves- perhaps a disinterest or ignorance, or a case of hearing it enough it must be true? Should we be educating ourselves better? Is it the media's fault for quite frankly some very bias reporting on issues, slants being used or simply one or two key issues repeated over and over on the news- is this influencing and shaping our complete lack of correct information on these issues? Or is the news pandering to what the audience wants?

As to how on earth politicians might better educate us on these issues though and the realities, i'm not sure in all honesty. The UK political establishment isn't exactly the most trusted of institutions, and perhaps that's the problem, since people are far more liable to trust their chosen favourite media outlet (Who ironically usually have more of an agenda and bias than state government). It's a very interesting scenario we're in.

I read about that today, in Belgium, Belgians also suspect 31% of people are unemployed and living from wellfare, whereas the actual number is 8% people also suspect that 21% of the population here is muslim


It sheds a light on election results and peoples worries.

You can blame media and politics all you want for this, but I suspect it's more due to uncertainty and economic fears, we all want someone to be angry at or to blame for why things are going poorly thus we inflate the perceived threats we know off.

I personally I'm going through a more difficult time than usual, and I currently hate practically everyone not directly related or friends of me, doesn't matter what the background is, I hate everyone and want to smash everyone's face in so having someone to look down on, is a good way of boosting my own sense of self worth.

I think that sentiment plays a large role, we always look for someone to be angry at and we'll exaggerate the problem that group represents.

personal example:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm hugely guilty of it in the Ebola thread where I mostly just vent all my frustrations and direct all my anger about everything going wrong now (financially: can't buy what I want! And having trouble keeping up with bills whilst my fiancé nags everyday about wanting the attic finished (as in stairs, cement floor, plaster walls etc...) or nagging about wanting another kid despite me telling her I don't want another child due to my passable genetic condition, and children being expensive to maintain, and personally: Anderlecht losing all but 1 games in the entire month October, the Anderlecht - Arsenal game, my sister in law picking fights etc....) at Africa the continent. The weird thing is that during typing, all the hatred I'm typing makes me feel better, and then afterwards I'm ashamed and stay away from that thread right up until I'm angry again and need to get rid of my growing hatred for Africa again, a hatred that only started when I heard we will be sending money and materials to Africa almost around the same time government announced austerity like measures) I'm actually feeling the rage boil up as I type about the austerity and want to hurt someone. And rationally I know, Africa, or Africans can't be blamed, only our own government and maybe the banking sector, but emotionally....

[alhoon]

A recent polling by Ipsos Mori worldwide has revealed that basically, on average people are thick (Suprise suprise).

Highly recommend a look:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...hing?CMP=fb_gu

Good find!
+ rep

[Adar]

I am very skeptic to how this survey was conducted. Because we know that people are very reluctant to select "extreme" choices. And if given a 0-100 scale, then 5 % look very extreme unless you actually sit down and think about the issues at hand.

I think this is a major factor in why percentages such as the number of muslims, the percentage of teenage mothers and the percentage of gays in America is massively overestimated is underestimated in these surveys.

The "correct" answers also seem to fairly questionable in many cases. In Sweden the correct answer for Christians is just plain wrong as it is based on the percentage of people paying church taxes. Which include people like me, and I can assure you that I am not christian but appreciate some of the services performed by the church (it's like a daycare centre for old and/or crippled people). If you look at more accurate statistics (the SOM survey) then you can see that ~19 % of the Swedish population respond that they have prayed to god in the last month and 8 % that they have attended a religious meeting in the last month. So we got a pretty serious overestimate in the Guardian article.

The number of people who have prayed to god is of course also include. And based on membership in registered organisations we have approximately 1,2 % muslims in Sweden which is probably a bit of an underestimate. But the 5 % estimate is definitely not accurate as it is based on muslim lobby groups who make their claims based on "immigrants from muslim countries". Which is wrong as we know that a large percentage of Iranians, Iraqis and Syrians immigrants decided to leave their home countries because of religious persecution or conflicts with the muslim majority population.

One thing that caught my attention when checking up the numbers was that we have 46 000 members of the syrian-orthodox church in Sweden. But only 110 000 registered members of muslim organizations in Sweden.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, one of my pet peeves is when people confuse being informed with being intelligent (or in this case confusing being uninformed with being thick). But lets not get into that because I think this misconception generally works to my advantage .