If this was the case, it would be very easy to predict what taste people had based on their intelligence (i.e highly intelligent people all listen to classical music, such as Bach/Mozart).
This is just not the case however. Taste differs, regardless of intellect. I have met some upper class, pompous people that seemed to think taste somehow made them more intelligent (one of them actually reminded me of Hyacinth Bucket, oh sorry, Bouquet), but in most cases it just makes them look silly.
There are many factors involved in what people prefer - culture, religion, childhood, various influences from parents/friends/school. No single factor can explain why someone likes or dislikes particular music, food, books, etc, and there's certainly no such thing as "right" or "wrong" taste. It's arrogant to believe that ones taste is somehow more correct, more refined or more developed than others.
That being said - I do believe that some things have a higher minimum requirement to be understood and appreciated (Bach vs The Beatles), but being able to understand something doesn't mean you enjoy it.
Well, if you want my view of DeepO's rather "interesting" argument, it has little or nothing to do with an overall "level of understanding" or complex reading necessarily having higher "requirements" than what the average human being can manage. Average as in being able to read and understand the words used in the text.
It has to do with personal preference, obviously, but that's typically based on your level and specifically nature of... here it comes.... INTEREST.
Some people are more interested in gaming/reading/wine/food/movies than others - and some people enjoy "simple" examples of their passions, even if they're the most gifted people in the world.
One way of completely nullifying this theory DeepO has, for instance, is that there are people (quite a lot of them, probably) who enjoy BOTH "simple" reading like The Stolen Throne AND "complex/deep" reading like Shakespeare. What's more, they enjoy it at the same level - just in different ways. Just like food or sex can sometimes be best when it's the most basic and simple versions
Now, how could that be if your ability to appreciate "complex/deep" entertainment/pleasures was directly related to your capacity for such things. Why would you enjoy simple things that should be beneath you.
It's a childish point of view that, to me, indicates a profound lack of understanding of human nature.
I, personally, tend to enjoy "deep/complex" games a lot more than simple ones, but that has nothing (or very little) to do with my intellect. It has to do with me being an enthusiast gamer who has spent endless years conditioning myself to a certain kind of experience and developing a very specific taste in games.
By that same token, I can enjoy "simple" and "unsophisticated" reading material or even movies - because I don't have the same requirements. It doesn't mean I'm stupid or that I have a lower capacity. Note that while I haven't read much in recent years, I've watched MANY MANY movies - but guess what, my interest level is lower and different than my interest level in games. I have some things that I require in movies - but it doesn't have to do with "complexity" or "depth". More like plausibility and "true" art.
It's very basic human psychology, and it really CAN be summed up by having different tastes or preferences.
It's not quite as simple as all that of course, but that's the gist of it. I won't get into the prestige aspect - where my theory is that some people actually enjoy "sophisticated" food/wine/games/reading/whatever more simply because they believe there's some kind of prestige in that, and for some reason that enhances their sense of pleasure in a way that is indistinguishable from "actual" enjoyment. It probably IS actual enjoyment. I wouldn't know - it's just not something I can relate to.
