That individuals with higher cognitive ability are more appreciative of the free flow of divergent ideas by groups at various places on the ideological spectrum

Of particular note. From Freedom of Speech: A Right for Everybody, or Only for Like-Minded People? by Jonas De Keersmaecker.

Freedom of speech is often considered key to a well-functional democracy. In many countries, freedom of speech is considered a more important democratic value than regular elections. But do people genuinely believe in the virtues of open debates by supporting freedom of speech for every social group? Or do they support free speech only for their own groups? In a recently published paper in Social Psychological and Personality Science, we aimed to answer these questions, and we sought to explore whether higher cognitive ability was associated with more principled positions on free speech. We expected that people with higher cognitive abilities would be more inclined to embrace the open exchange of ideas, wherein viewpoints can be scrutinized and challenged in order to foster informed decision making and knowledge. Therefore, it was hypothesized that cognitive ability is related to more generalized freedom of speech support for all social groups across the ideological spectrum.

He then describes and summarizes the three analytical tests done on the data.

The series of studies suggest that cognitive ability is related to support for freedom of speech for groups across the ideological spectrum. These results do not mean that people with higher cognitive abilities are free speech absolutists. Indeed, although cognitive ability was reliably related to relatively stronger free speech support for each social group, groups that preach hate and violence (e.g., racists, anti-American Muslim clergymen) received rather limited freedom of speech support in absolute terms. The results do suggest, however, that individuals with higher cognitive ability are more appreciative of the free flow of divergent ideas by groups at various places on the ideological spectrum. Indeed, even when these groups voice ideas that they don’t like.

The natural question from these findings follows.

What does it say when the centers most associated with deplatforming, cancel culture, speech controls, and resistance to alternative ideas are our universities? With our most elite universities manifesting the greatest aversion?

What does it say about the cognitive ability of the administrative leaders of those institutions? Might this be a modern rewriting of the WWI adage? That the cognitive lions (faculty) are led by cognitive donkeys (the administration)? It seems logical. You don't want to be a science denier do you?

And similarly, what can we know of the cognitive abilities of the leadership of the social justice, intersectionality, and critical theory movements which are also known for their deplatforming, cancel culture, speech controls, and resistance to alternative ideas?

If we want to clean-up our cognitive playing field, these studies suggest where we might need to begin.

Or maybe I am reading too much in to the findings.