Like most politically-skewed editorials (is there any other kind), the article is full of over-simplifications and attempts to discredit a dissenter without actually addressing the issue she brings up to begin with. Her real premise seems to be that "smart" people don't dissent when it will be unpopular -- in other words, think what you will, but shut up and don't bother the rest of us with "ideas."

On the intelligence vs/ dissent issue, I would draw a difference between "dissent" and "disagreement." Any drooling idiot can get paranoid and disagree with everything in the world including whether or not the world is round. One who disagrees can be an anti-social genius or too mentally defective to feed oneself. Disagreement has nothing to do with intelligence.

The word "dissent," however, implies that one has studied the opposite opinion and come to a rational but differing conclusion. It doesn't require one be a genius, but it does require the ability and willingness to think.

When one is in the majority of opinion, there is much less incentive to stop and think rationally about why one believes what one does. You don't have to defend your opinion when most everyone agrees.

Dissent doesn't equal intelligence, but it does usually equal thought. Those in the majority can certainly be thoughtful, too, but many of them just don't bother, they are content with letting other people do the thinking for them. It's basic pack behavior -- one doesn't need to be a lemming to follow a leader, but there are plenty of lemmings out there, too.

There are of course those in with minority opinions who will blindly follow their own leaders, too. But it's a lot harder to find such a leader, you usually have to think on your own at some point.