Timmy elsewhereJuly 3, 2014 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere17 CommentsAt the ASI. An interesting bit in Danny Dorling’s new book previousThis is a blinder of an argument from RitchienextCalling any chemical engineers who might read this blog 17 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” So Much for Subtlety July 3, 2014 at 9:47 am I was reading someone talking about coups in Latin America. He said that people went to the same schools, and some joined the Army, some entered trade or politics. After a while, starting from the same place, the officers could see that their fellow class mates were doing so much better. Which fed into a general feeling that the universe was not ordered right and led to coups. Easy way to test this – give Polly a CBE. She if she still sides with her lower-paid colleagues. Roue le Jour July 3, 2014 at 10:03 am When were journalists ever in the Georgian Rectory class? Slightly OT, but as the private sector has slimmed down I think it’s generally true that there are fewer sinecures available in it. This I believe is why the growth in quangos, it simply isn’t possible to park a useless chum in a friendly business (BLMC, British Coal, etc.) any more. Rob July 3, 2014 at 10:09 am Western feminism is the struggle of upper middle-class privately educated women at the Guardian against upper middle-class privately educated men who hold the positions they want. bloke (not) in spain July 3, 2014 at 11:43 am But the fight always has been amongst the top 10% about who gets to be in the 1%. Rest of us are just spectators. When we’re not the cannon fodder. dearieme July 3, 2014 at 11:51 am Dorling is overpaid because of the ludicrous university policy of paying broadly the same salaries to people in the Humanities and Social Sciences as to Lawyers, Engineers, Vets and the like. He should count his lucky stars. Gamecock July 3, 2014 at 12:09 pm “No, he’s quite insistent that it’s really about the growing gap between the 1% and the other 9% of the top 10%.” This is true. Hillary Clinton considers being a ten percenter being “dead broke.” Surreptitious Evil July 3, 2014 at 1:02 pm But the fight always has been amongst the top 10% about who gets to be in the 1%. Rest of us are just spectators. “Us”? Being a 10%er in the UK is a gross income of around £50k. I’d be comfortably over that if I was full-time Army rather than a mere reservist. Interested July 3, 2014 at 2:32 pm @Roue ‘When were journalists ever in the Georgian Rectory class?’ Depends on what you mean by ‘journalists’, but if you mean senior columnists on six figure salaries, and editors, I guess until about ten years ago? (I’d say most of them still could, in all but the poshest villages and with all but the grandest rectories, they just couldn’t also afford a London pied a terre.) Charles Moore lives in one, after all – he founded the Old Rectory Society (or somesuch). May have had some family money too, though, I don’t know. john77 July 3, 2014 at 2:37 pm If someone genuinely earns the money he (or, occasionally, she) deserves it and is welcome to it (well, as far as I am concerned, at any rate). When someone gets paid, say, £12million for being lucky while gambling with his (always his) employer’s money ordinary people resent it. Dorling (who appears to be among the relatively small but influential minority of professors less intelligent than I) is using the widespread natural resentment of pay that seems unfair to propagate his view that pseudo-intellectuals are treated unfairly just because someone else gets paid more than them. Surreptitious Evil July 3, 2014 at 5:58 pm Dorling (who appears to be among the relatively small but influential minority of professors less intelligent than I) Intelligence is surprisingly well correlated with “talks utter bollocks”. Or, as in this case, writes it. john77 July 3, 2014 at 9:14 pm @ SE Completely disagree with you. PRETENCE AT intelligence is surprisingly well correlated with “talks utter bollocks” – relatively few of the intelligent professors talk utter bollocks (and there are some decent guys less intelligent than I). So Much for Subtlety July 3, 2014 at 10:22 pm Gamecock – “This is true. Hillary Clinton considers being a ten percenter being “dead broke.”” But Hillary (will it ever be polite to call her the Hildebeast as the Obamas do?) is a great example of the Dorling problem. She just does not hang out with normal people. She hangs out with the new oligarchs – Hollywood people and the New York super rich. To them, $25 million is nearly broke. Being paid $250,000 of public money for a single lecture by your former Health Secretary is not outrageous. Dorling needs to get out of the ivory tower more and talk to more people who earn under £20 an hour. Surreptitious Evil July 3, 2014 at 10:24 pm @john77, Sighs … “Pretence at” is UNsurprisingly (see, I can shout too!) well correlated. Actual intelligence is, surprisingly, also well correlated. Feynman, as ever, is apposite. And even I’m not sufficiently cynical to try to correlate decency with intelligence. john77 July 4, 2014 at 12:18 am @ SE Can you supply me with data supporting the claim that genuine intelligence, excluding pseudo-intellectuals, is correlated with “talks utter bollocks”? My personal experience is that if you exclude pseudo-intellectuals there is no correlation with anything. So Much for Subtlety July 4, 2014 at 1:06 am john77 – “Can you supply me with data supporting the claim that genuine intelligence, excluding pseudo-intellectuals, is correlated with “talks utter bollocks”?” The problem here is definition – who is a pseudo-intellectual? Someone without genuine intelligence? “My personal experience is that if you exclude pseudo-intellectuals there is no correlation with anything.” I tend to think that stupidity is well distributed through-out the whole population. But you both are talking about professors. They have a special class of stupidity, in my opinion, because they are so willing to share it. They work with other leftists who believe all the same things they do. They talk b0ll0cks to students every day who don’t dare argue back. They have credentials and so feel pleased with themselves. There is no one to tell them they are full of sh!t unless they are very lucky with their wives. They live in an echo chamber where all the pretty young girls agree with them. Naturally the real world is different and a bit of a shock. So it does not occur to them that well meaning people of good faith – and reasonable intelligence – could hold another view. Tim Newman July 4, 2014 at 6:34 am Dorling is overpaid because of the ludicrous university policy of paying broadly the same salaries to people in the Humanities and Social Sciences as to Lawyers, Engineers, Vets and the like. He should count his lucky stars. That doses sound ludicrous, but then it occurred to me that HR managers probably get paid the same as production managers in an oil company… john77 July 5, 2014 at 10:02 pm @ SMFS 50-odd years ago there was a fairly simple definition of “pseudo-intellectual” – someone who pretended to be an intellectual without being one. They could be easily recognised by their pretentious behaviour (and, frequently,dress). At my school they could be recognised by their blue nylon shirts instead of the uniform grey cotton shirts – none of the scholars belonged to that group. Very few professors are actually stupid (I shall choose to ignore your implied insult) – the behaviour of those indoctrinating students would be more forgiveable if it was due to actual stupidity. Secondly most of the professors (and lecturers) whom I know/knew at college do not allow their political views to affect their teaching (possibly because most of them teach/taught mathematics, physics, chemistry, philosophy, law, statistics …). Indoctrinating students is a gross breach of academic standards. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.