Do u honestly look at trump voters and think they are just as smart and educated? I mean even if they r not formally educated, they could still be just as educated.
I have no way to know their average "smartness". Intelligence is not precisely defined for all the importance we place on it.
There are some tests that are repeatable (like IQ) but nobody is willing to put their lives in the hands of someone else just because they solved some mini-puzzles faster.
Much like racial categorization that which we can quantify is of insignificant merit compared to character, morals, and (true) education. A 'stupid' man with good ethics and a lot of experience is better to associate with than a nazi 'genius' who will lie to you to get you to do what he wants.
There are definitely idiots and geniuses in every political/philosophical camp, and I explain that by saying that epistemology doesn't require a lot of intelligence nor does intelligence guarantee any particular epistemology. The fact that both the people who invented calculus (independently) were theists is one of thousands of examples.
There are errors which people will not recognize as errors because they don't equally apply rationality to all propositions. Also a broken clock is right twice a day, and those who automatically mistrust any message that is pushed too fervently tend to be right more than they are wrong simply because of the nature of propaganda.
Thus you have times in history where idiots and geniuses tend to be on one side while people of average intelligence/education are on another.
I believe we in one of those times though it is not as pronounced as some make it out to be. That is I think that fools and wise men are over represented in the right-tribe. The wise men see through the propaganda. The fools don't, but they can read body language and are sensitive to people trying to take advantage of their lack of perception (from hard experience).
As I said, I don't think colleges today are oriented towards idiots or geniuses. They are indoctrination machines geared to instill a certain world view into people who are smart enough to think they understand the explanations but not so 'smart/wise' as to critically examine 'experts' and 'official narratives'.
Again this is a sharp contrast to the real academic tradition (since Socrates) of lighting any argument on fire with questions and peering in every crevice looking for a contradiction. Real experts debate. Real teachers try to create real experts by inviting and encouraging arguments and counter-arguments.
This creates people who know how to use whatever intelligence they have. That's not how universities (or public schools) are generally operating now and it shows in ever decreasing standards for grades.
I think u r good at giving opposing theories but r lacking the common sense part, the sniff test so to speak.
That's what those 'low-education' Trump voters say about the other side too.
Now when people say "common sense" they could be talking about obvious appeals to absurdity, or they could be talking about their gut feelings.
When you say "sniff test" it sounds like you're talking about your gut. Your gut doesn't beat theirs. If you choose to follow it regardless of my "opposing theories" I can't stop you, just like I can't stop the religious.
Faith, "sniff tests", these things are not arguments and do not yield to rationality.