“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Projection on your part methinks. I don't think that there is much difference between Leavers and Remainers on the issue. Indeed those most keen on more restrictions are the retired, who are mostly Leavers.
Unlike your theory that Remainers are more cautious, I would say that Leavers are pro-lockdown because the burden falls mostly on others.
The reality when you look at the polling is that there is very little between the two groups in terms of desires for measures in the polling. As ever, it is just possible that your trawling of the nutter end of twitter is a tad unrepresentative:
Er, what? Your very own evidence shows that I’m right. As always
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57 Leave: 39
"Only allowing people to leave home for essential shopping, exercise and work" (a reasonable definition of Lockdown) supported by 21% of Remainers and 20% of Leavers.
So, lockdown advocated by an equal number, allowing for MOE, of each in November.
You didn’t read your own data, did you?
I am sure you are more scrupulous in your hospital duties. For which, by the way, many thanks (sincerely).
I suspect @kinabalu has turned out right, and HMG is gonna tough out Omicron with no further restrictions in England. It will be a bruising January in the NHS. Good luck, doc
I did. Desire for lockdown in November was expressed by 21% and 20% in the YouGov poll. I would describe that as an equal and minority support by either faction. Perhaps your attention span is too short to reach the end of the table.
Yet your mental capacity is so weirdly limited you didn’t read the actual first line of data, which is perplexing and distressing in a medic. Like missing the enormous tumour but spotting the sinusitis.
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Secondly, the most important by election was NS. An astonishing fail by the tories.
The Tories still got just over half the voteshare in the by election they did in North Shropshire in 2019. It was a midterm protest vote nothing more, the LDs are an easy free hit in by elections.
The LDs have not held a seat they won from the Tories in a by election at the subsequent general election since Romsey in 2001 and I doubt North Shropshire will be any different
The Tories also lost in Chesham & Amersham.
Only after the last general election
So it couldn't have been just a "protest vote"?
How do we know, the Tories might win back Chesham and Amersham and North Shropshire in 2024
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Projection on your part methinks. I don't think that there is much difference between Leavers and Remainers on the issue. Indeed those most keen on more restrictions are the retired, who are mostly Leavers.
Unlike your theory that Remainers are more cautious, I would say that Leavers are pro-lockdown because the burden falls mostly on others.
The reality when you look at the polling is that there is very little between the two groups in terms of desires for measures in the polling. As ever, it is just possible that your trawling of the nutter end of twitter is a tad unrepresentative:
Er, what? Your very own evidence shows that I’m right. As always
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57 Leave: 39
"Only allowing people to leave home for essential shopping, exercise and work" (a reasonable definition of Lockdown) supported by 21% of Remainers and 20% of Leavers.
So, lockdown advocated by an equal number, allowing for MOE, of each in November.
You didn’t read your own data, did you?
I am sure you are more scrupulous in your hospital duties. For which, by the way, many thanks (sincerely).
I suspect @kinabalu has turned out right, and HMG is gonna tough out Omicron with no further restrictions in England. It will be a bruising January in the NHS. Good luck, doc
I did. Desire for lockdown in November was expressed by 21% and 20% in the YouGov poll. I would describe that as an equal and minority support by either faction. Perhaps your attention span is too short to reach the end of the table.
Yet your mental capacity is so weirdly limited you didn’t read the actual first line of data, which is perplexing and distressing in a medic. Like missing the enormous tumour but spotting the sinusitis.
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57 Leave: 39
TBF 'lockdown' and 'restrictions' are not the same thing. Though some folk seem to think they are. Mainly the ones who e.g. think wearing a facemask for 10 mins is a total disaster [not going to go into the rights and wrongs, just noting that]. But that doesn't explain the pattern does it??
The competition result is delayed by the incomplete data today… this hasn’t turned into the F1esque nail biter one had hoped for, but let’s string out the lack of excitement for one more day…. @Northern_Al can wait
The safety car is out, and once it comes off the track a selection of the lapped cars missing numbers from previous days will be added back in to show that the peak of 1,048,576 was achieved on 21 December.
The competition result is delayed by the incomplete data today… this hasn’t turned into the F1esque nail biter one had hoped for, but let’s string out the lack of excitement for one more day…. @Northern_Al can wait
Oh, the agony. So near, yet so far.
PS - have you removed the Boris Johnson foreword yet?
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
Most business was pro Remain. Working classes were more pro Leave. How is that an alternative universe. As someone who owned his own company at the time not a single one of my contacts was a leaver. Not one. These were the ones who were taking risks, not the employees.
Yes that’s right. Rich business owners take all the risks in life, those poor stupid working class drones face no risks at all. They have it easy, the scum
I'd be interested if anyone has predictions for peak daily hospitalisations this month. Probably quite pertinent to political betting!
Good question: I'm going for 5,000 - I hope I am seriously over-estimating.
Basis: Warwick model, omicron 80% less severe than Delta, no further NPIs in England.
Thanks. Though I think 80% vs Delta is very optimistic, I must confess I don't know what the assumptions of the Warwick model were. Obviously people have changed their behaviour, and the doubling time has changed a lot. Does anyone know what the model assumed?
The examples I saw from Warwick assumed 50% less severe.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Projection on your part methinks. I don't think that there is much difference between Leavers and Remainers on the issue. Indeed those most keen on more restrictions are the retired, who are mostly Leavers.
Unlike your theory that Remainers are more cautious, I would say that Leavers are pro-lockdown because the burden falls mostly on others.
The reality when you look at the polling is that there is very little between the two groups in terms of desires for measures in the polling. As ever, it is just possible that your trawling of the nutter end of twitter is a tad unrepresentative:
Er, what? Your very own evidence shows that I’m right. As always
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57 Leave: 39
"Only allowing people to leave home for essential shopping, exercise and work" (a reasonable definition of Lockdown) supported by 21% of Remainers and 20% of Leavers.
So, lockdown advocated by an equal number, allowing for MOE, of each in November.
You didn’t read your own data, did you?
I am sure you are more scrupulous in your hospital duties. For which, by the way, many thanks (sincerely).
I suspect @kinabalu has turned out right, and HMG is gonna tough out Omicron with no further restrictions in England. It will be a bruising January in the NHS. Good luck, doc
I did. Desire for lockdown in November was expressed by 21% and 20% in the YouGov poll. I would describe that as an equal and minority support by either faction. Perhaps your attention span is too short to reach the end of the table.
Yet your mental capacity is so weirdly limited you didn’t read the actual first line of data, which is perplexing and distressing in a medic. Like missing the enormous tumour but spotting the sinusitis.
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57 Leave: 39
Don't ever get ill in Leicester, just sayin. The rest of us would be fine but you might be in a spot of bother.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
(Snip)
I've often discovered that (say) a mechanic who left school at 16 and has a low IQ is really intelligent and more useful than a brainiac scientists if I'm stuck on the roadside and need my car fixing. Or a plumber if I my sink is leaking.
There's a massive issue with smart people thinking they're smart in areas outside their areas of knowledge/expertise, and looking down at people they deem 'dumb' because they don't have some meaningless qualification from the mid-Thames university.
Thousands of anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists have joined a group on social media that threatens 'direct action' and promotes combat training and mixed martial art sessions.
Alpha Men Assemble, an online collective with more than 2,800 followers, has planned meetings to practice 'training and strategy tactics' in Staffordshire, London and Lanarkshire, Scotland.
Mail
Perhaps I am cynical,but I people who have to self consciously assert their alpha male status even in their group name don't come across as very alpha to me. Speaking as a beta, I'd know.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
(Snip)
I've often discovered that (say) a mechanic who left school at 16 and has a low IQ is really intelligent and more useful than a brainiac scientists if I'm stuck on the roadside and need my car fixing. Or a plumber if I my sink is leaking.
There's a massive issue with smart people thinking they're smart in areas outside their areas of knowledge/expertise, and looking down at people they deem 'dumb' because they don't have some meaningless qualification from the mid-Thames university.
That's true, but is there still such a thing as being able to measure general swiftness or depth of thought? Not a substitute for experience and knowledge of something someone else is better suited for, but there surely are some people just generally better able to grasp things than others?
16.5 hours into Dry January - so far, so good tedious.
I am having my last beer before I give up alcohol until Valentine’s Day. An Xmas gift. An oddly named craft beer called ‘lapsing into heresy’. It’s a strong Russian stout. Apparently it is not far of a tenner a tin !!! Insane.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
Most business was pro Remain. Working classes were more pro Leave. How is that an alternative universe. As someone who owned his own company at the time not a single one of my contacts was a leaver. Not one. These were the ones who were taking risks, not the employees.
Big business was pro-remain, small businesses were pro-leave.
So for someone who you described as being in another Universe you do agree big business was largely made up of Remainers and working class Leavers. So basically apart from the small business's which I grant you, you basically agree with me. So welcome to my alternative Universe then. Maybe a bit of an over reaction by you and Leon then?
I think @HYUFD got it pretty right with his sets with @Benpointer added one of the old.
I'd be interested if anyone has predictions for peak daily hospitalisations this month. Probably quite pertinent to political betting!
Good question: I'm going for 5,000 - I hope I am seriously over-estimating.
Basis: Warwick model, omicron 80% less severe than Delta, no further NPIs in England.
Thanks. Though I think 80% vs Delta is very optimistic, I must confess I don't know what the assumptions of the Warwick model were. Obviously people have changed their behaviour, and the doubling time has changed a lot. Does anyone know what the model assumed?
The examples I saw from Warwick assumed 50% less severe.
They did multiple projections, see fig 9 in the link below.
I opted for the 20% severity (i.e. 80% less severe). 50% severity points to a peak of 12.5k hospitalisations per day in their model.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Projection on your part methinks. I don't think that there is much difference between Leavers and Remainers on the issue. Indeed those most keen on more restrictions are the retired, who are mostly Leavers.
Unlike your theory that Remainers are more cautious, I would say that Leavers are pro-lockdown because the burden falls mostly on others.
The reality when you look at the polling is that there is very little between the two groups in terms of desires for measures in the polling. As ever, it is just possible that your trawling of the nutter end of twitter is a tad unrepresentative:
Er, what? Your very own evidence shows that I’m right. As always
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57 Leave: 39
"Only allowing people to leave home for essential shopping, exercise and work" (a reasonable definition of Lockdown) supported by 21% of Remainers and 20% of Leavers.
So, lockdown advocated by an equal number, allowing for MOE, of each in November.
You didn’t read your own data, did you?
I am sure you are more scrupulous in your hospital duties. For which, by the way, many thanks (sincerely).
I suspect @kinabalu has turned out right, and HMG is gonna tough out Omicron with no further restrictions in England. It will be a bruising January in the NHS. Good luck, doc
I did. Desire for lockdown in November was expressed by 21% and 20% in the YouGov poll. I would describe that as an equal and minority support by either faction. Perhaps your attention span is too short to reach the end of the table.
Yet your mental capacity is so weirdly limited you didn’t read the actual first line of data, which is perplexing and distressing in a medic. Like missing the enormous tumour but spotting the sinusitis.
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57 Leave: 39
Don't ever get ill in Leicester, just sayin. The rest of us would be fine but you might be in a spot of bother.
If I ever find myself IN Leicester, for any reason whatsoever, I shall consider my life a total failure; so an untimely death at the hands of a flailing, clueless Leicester doctor, unable to read his own PDF, will seem a merciful release
16.5 hours into Dry January - so far, so good tedious.
I am having my last beer before I give up alcohol until Valentine’s Day. An Xmas gift. An oddly named craft beer called ‘lapsing into heresy’. It’s a strong Russian stout. Apparently it is not far of a tenner a tin !!! Insane.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Projection on your part methinks. I don't think that there is much difference between Leavers and Remainers on the issue. Indeed those most keen on more restrictions are the retired, who are mostly Leavers.
Unlike your theory that Remainers are more cautious, I would say that Leavers are pro-lockdown because the burden falls mostly on others.
The reality when you look at the polling is that there is very little between the two groups in terms of desires for measures in the polling. As ever, it is just possible that your trawling of the nutter end of twitter is a tad unrepresentative:
Er, what? Your very own evidence shows that I’m right. As always
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57 Leave: 39
"Only allowing people to leave home for essential shopping, exercise and work" (a reasonable definition of Lockdown) supported by 21% of Remainers and 20% of Leavers.
So, lockdown advocated by an equal number, allowing for MOE, of each in November.
You didn’t read your own data, did you?
I am sure you are more scrupulous in your hospital duties. For which, by the way, many thanks (sincerely).
I suspect @kinabalu has turned out right, and HMG is gonna tough out Omicron with no further restrictions in England. It will be a bruising January in the NHS. Good luck, doc
I did. Desire for lockdown in November was expressed by 21% and 20% in the YouGov poll. I would describe that as an equal and minority support by either faction. Perhaps your attention span is too short to reach the end of the table.
Yet your mental capacity is so weirdly limited you didn’t read the actual first line of data, which is perplexing and distressing in a medic. Like missing the enormous tumour but spotting the sinusitis.
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57 Leave: 39
Don't ever get ill in Leicester, just sayin. The rest of us would be fine but you might be in a spot of bother.
If I ever find myself IN Leicester, for any reason whatsoever, I shall consider my life a total failure; so an untimely death at the hands of a flailing, clueless Leicester doctor, unable to read his own PDF, will seem a merciful release
That's a little unfair. The National Space Museum is a really good place to visit for kids. And the southern end of the Great Central Railway is in the city (although it may be a few metres outside it; I forget), so it's easy to escape to civilisation (Loughborough) in style...
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
16.5 hours into Dry January - so far, so good tedious.
I am having my last beer before I give up alcohol until Valentine’s Day. An Xmas gift. An oddly named craft beer called ‘lapsing into heresy’. It’s a strong Russian stout. Apparently it is not far of a tenner a tin !!! Insane.
12.5% ABV it says here, also insane.
Sounds like what used to be called an Imperial Stout. Made for the Russian aristo market. Very strong generally. iirc it was strong to preserve the beer for the long journey. But I am happy to be corrected.
I'd be interested if anyone has predictions for peak daily hospitalisations this month. Probably quite pertinent to political betting!
Good question: I'm going for 5,000 - I hope I am seriously over-estimating.
Basis: Warwick model, omicron 80% less severe than Delta, no further NPIs in England.
Thanks. Though I think 80% vs Delta is very optimistic, I must confess I don't know what the assumptions of the Warwick model were. Obviously people have changed their behaviour, and the doubling time has changed a lot. Does anyone know what the model assumed?
The examples I saw from Warwick assumed 50% less severe.
Thanks. That's close to the Imperial number, which I find more believable as it includes an attempt to account for protection through unidentified previous infection.
But what I was wondering about was the percentage immune to infection and the R number. If the numbers had kept on doubling every two days, I think it's obvious the NHS would have been overwhelmed, or would already be bound to be overwhelmed. They didn't keep on doubling every two days. But was that because people were holding back before Christmas? What would the effect of Christmas Day itself be? Did people become less cautious after Christmas?
Obviously there are huge uncertainties, and huge risks. I have to say that - obviously trying to allow for time lags - there doesn't seem to be a big difference in the ratio of hospitalisations to positive tests. Both of them have roughly doubled.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Not just an u/grad. Wiki amplifies my dim memory: He was later an economic history lecturer at New College, Oxford, and a research fellow at University College, Oxford.
John Redwood was (is?) a Fellow of All Souls as well but I don't know the chap well enough to comment.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
Most business was pro Remain. Working classes were more pro Leave. How is that an alternative universe. As someone who owned his own company at the time not a single one of my contacts was a leaver. Not one. These were the ones who were taking risks, not the employees.
Yes that’s right. Rich business owners take all the risks in life, those poor stupid working class drones face no risks at all. They have it easy, the scum
Why Remain Lost, part 287 in a series of 17,000
Vaguely a propos excellent typo, if it is, in today's Telegraph
“I do understand that Andrew, because of who he is, shines a megawatt of light upon the whole affair. And because there cannot be a law for the knobs and a law for the poor, they have to investigate,” he [Maxwell's bro] said.
16.5 hours into Dry January - so far, so good tedious.
I am having my last beer before I give up alcohol until Valentine’s Day. An Xmas gift. An oddly named craft beer called ‘lapsing into heresy’. It’s a strong Russian stout. Apparently it is not far of a tenner a tin !!! Insane.
Tucking into a pale ale here. Bit of a hair of the dog situation as I made rather merry last night as Bob Cratchit once said.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
Most business was pro Remain. Working classes were more pro Leave. How is that an alternative universe. As someone who owned his own company at the time not a single one of my contacts was a leaver. Not one. These were the ones who were taking risks, not the employees.
Yes that’s right. Rich business owners take all the risks in life, those poor stupid working class drones face no risks at all. They have it easy, the scum
Why Remain Lost, part 287 in a serious of 17,000
Well for someone who claims to be bright I'm surprised you can't tell the difference between words that have very different meanings. You also jumped to wild conclusions about what I said. There is a big difference between 'facing a risk' and 'taking a risk' and at no point did I suggest they had it easy. It is for the very reason they don't have it easy that it is more difficult to take a risk.
It is easier to take risks if you are rich than if you are poor. As the guy who formed EasyJet said when asked about this very subject responded with it helped that his Dad gave him a £1m.
If you are poor life is tougher and setting up a business is much harder.
In fact in my own case I set up my business once I was financially secure.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
A majority of working age may be what you meant. There are a lot of Remainers in the private sector, with obvious examples on this board in the Law, Financial Services and the Arts amongst others.
Plenty of Remainers were in FTSE 100 companies or the established city firms yes.
Leavers tended to be in small businesses, farmers, fishermen or pensioners or the working class
Of which, the farmers, fisherfolk and any small business engaged in import/export are, or soon will be, having second thoughts.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Successful scientist? Didn't have a very long publication list, surely, if one goes by that defintion, did she? But then she didn't work in academia. And -quite apart from anything else - she was perhaps the best PM to be confronted with the ozone hole. By comparison ...
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
Enoch Powell was a professor at 26
Yeh, but Wikipedia tells me he was professor at the university of Australian philosophers rather than the glittering spires place.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
Most business was pro Remain. Working classes were more pro Leave. How is that an alternative universe. As someone who owned his own company at the time not a single one of my contacts was a leaver. Not one. These were the ones who were taking risks, not the employees.
Yes that’s right. Rich business owners take all the risks in life, those poor stupid working class drones face no risks at all. They have it easy, the scum
Why Remain Lost, part 287 in a series of 17,000
In the long run remain lost because the political class and elites - whose policies on the EU were on the whole coherent sensible and intelligent - senselessly and unintelligently forgot that if you don't take the voters with you as a whole the other bright stuff counts for nothing.
Four or five referendums on the key constitutional change points would have settled the thing, and probably prevented the EU starting to look like a thing with state like trappings (flag, anthem, parliament, elections, currency, central bank, a court binding national courts) but no defence capacity. Something which remains absurd even though we are out of it.
Thousands of anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists have joined a group on social media that threatens 'direct action' and promotes combat training and mixed martial art sessions.
Alpha Men Assemble, an online collective with more than 2,800 followers, has planned meetings to practice 'training and strategy tactics' in Staffordshire, London and Lanarkshire, Scotland.
Mail
Perhaps I am cynical,but I people who have to self consciously assert their alpha male status even in their group name don't come across as very alpha to me. Speaking as a beta, I'd know.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
(Snip)
I've often discovered that (say) a mechanic who left school at 16 and has a low IQ is really intelligent and more useful than a brainiac scientists if I'm stuck on the roadside and need my car fixing. Or a plumber if I my sink is leaking.
There's a massive issue with smart people thinking they're smart in areas outside their areas of knowledge/expertise, and looking down at people they deem 'dumb' because they don't have some meaningless qualification from the mid-Thames university.
That's true, but is there still such a thing as being able to measure general swiftness or depth of thought? Not a substitute for experience and knowledge of something someone else is better suited for, but there surely are some people just generally better able to grasp things than others?
I think people can be good at grasping things in a certain area. I know someone who trained as a farmer (as in was born on a farm, and studied farming at college) who is brilliant with mechanisms, whether tractors, cars or clocks/watches. He can just grasp how things work from looking. But he is not very good with computers, which can befuddle him. A bit of an issue as things become more computerised.
I think PB is excellent for learning stuff you'd never usually think about, and that's down to the wide knowledge base we have on here.
I'd also add a really useful skill that is pretty much independent of IQ/intelligence is a well-honed bullsh*t meter.
Sky Atlantic have got all 5 episodes of Chernobyl on right now and on demand. It's almost like a real life version of Don't Look Up. Sad to think that Western nations are on the same path as the Soviet Union.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Thatcher got a second class degree, not even a first. She was bright and sharp but she was not over 160 IQ super intelligent
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Successful scientist? Didn't have a very long publication list, surely, if one goes by that defintion, did she? But then she didn't work in academia. And -quite apart from anything else - she was perhaps the best PM to be confronted with the ozone hole. By comparison ...
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
What about "two brains" David Willetts? Maybe not a top rank politician though.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
Enoch Powell was a professor at 26
Yeh, but Wikipedia tells me he was professor at the university of Australian philosophers rather than the glittering spires place.
But I think the Oxford University Press let him edit Thucydides so he must have sscrubbed up OK
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Which sort of proves the point, if you’re right
Enoch Powell, for all his talents, ended up an exiled failure, hated by many
Gordon Brown was a laughably poor prime minister, with no idea what to do despite craving the job for decades
John Redwood has said some amazingly dumb things - particularly re Brexit - for an alleged genius
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
What about "two brains" David Willetts? Maybe not a top rank politician though.
No, he also had more social skills than Powell, Redwood and Brown. Over 140 sub 160 again at best
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Well obviously I don't know, just like you, but Harold Wilson's son is a Professor of Maths and brilliant. I studied his work when at Uni. I have to say I do not have a high regard for the 3 you consider geniuses. My sister in law was in the same class as Gordon Brown at school and my wife at the school at the same time and they don't rave about him and I have often thought that in the case of Enoch Powell one can conflate well educated with intelligence.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
As a young man, growing up in 80s, I detested Thatcher and everything she did.
In my mature years now I concede she was a one in a million individual. Incredible achievements given she was a woman in what was then still definitely a man's world.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Successful scientist? Didn't have a very long publication list, surely, if one goes by that defintion, did she? But then she didn't work in academia. And -quite apart from anything else - she was perhaps the best PM to be confronted with the ozone hole. By comparison ...
Did she invent artificial ice cream or some such?
Certainly worked in that field for J. Lyons, I'd assumed part of a team. 2-3 years? Don't know enough about it to say. Maybe there are papers in food science journals, come to think of it?
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Successful scientist? Didn't have a very long publication list, surely, if one goes by that defintion, did she? But then she didn't work in academia. And -quite apart from anything else - she was perhaps the best PM to be confronted with the ozone hole. By comparison ...
Judging scientists by the length of their publication list is one of the problems with how science is currently practised.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Thatcher got a second class degree, not even a first. She was bright and sharp but she was not over 160 IQ super intelligent
I find that view quite funny. Especially as I don't have a degree and, by your sort of thinking, must be some form of dribbling in-bred yokel.
The class of degree you get is rarely an indicator of out-and-out intelligence.
Then again, what is intelligence? I've refereed heated discussions between people from the uni where they argue about exactly that.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
Most business was pro Remain. Working classes were more pro Leave. How is that an alternative universe. As someone who owned his own company at the time not a single one of my contacts was a leaver. Not one. These were the ones who were taking risks, not the employees.
Yes that’s right. Rich business owners take all the risks in life, those poor stupid working class drones face no risks at all. They have it easy, the scum
Why Remain Lost, part 287 in a series of 17,000
In the long run remain lost because the political class and elites - whose policies on the EU were on the whole coherent sensible and intelligent - senselessly and unintelligently forgot that if you don't take the voters with you as a whole the other bright stuff counts for nothing.
Four or five referendums on the key constitutional change points would have settled the thing, and probably prevented the EU starting to look like a thing with state like trappings (flag, anthem, parliament, elections, currency, central bank, a court binding national courts) but no defence capacity. Something which remains absurd even though we are out of it.
A Happy New Year to All, and happy to see my more optimistic views about Omicron seem to be being borne out.
On Brexit, all the surveys during and after the referendum suggested immigration, rather than stuctural-constitutional issues, were the centrepiece of the Brexit campaign. It was the year of the migration crisis.
On elites and Brexit, the many plutocrats linked to Brexit simply did a far better job of removing themselves from the centre of the stage than Cameron's arrogant and flat-footed campaign.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Which sort of proves the point, if you’re right
Enoch Powell, for all his talents, ended up an exiled failure, hated by many
Gordon Brown was a laughably poor prime minister, with no idea what to do despite craving the job for decades
John Redwood has said some amazingly dumb things - particularly re Brexit - for an alleged genius
I agree with your description of each, but then I suspect that HYUFD is not right. He has just leapt to the conclusion about their IQ with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Thatcher got a second class degree, not even a first. She was bright and sharp but she was not over 160 IQ super intelligent
That was in the days when a first really was a first, and a science degree was hard work. Especially an Oxford Chemistry one which I believe included a one year research project added on - effectively an integral MSc by research (it certainly did in later years). She was president of the student Conservative society, wasn't she? So that was another priority.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
Most business was pro Remain. Working classes were more pro Leave. How is that an alternative universe. As someone who owned his own company at the time not a single one of my contacts was a leaver. Not one. These were the ones who were taking risks, not the employees.
Yes that’s right. Rich business owners take all the risks in life, those poor stupid working class drones face no risks at all. They have it easy, the scum
Why Remain Lost, part 287 in a series of 17,000
In the long run remain lost because the political class and elites - whose policies on the EU were on the whole coherent sensible and intelligent - senselessly and unintelligently forgot that if you don't take the voters with you as a whole the other bright stuff counts for nothing.
Four or five referendums on the key constitutional change points would have settled the thing, and probably prevented the EU starting to look like a thing with state like trappings (flag, anthem, parliament, elections, currency, central bank, a court binding national courts) but no defence capacity. Something which remains absurd even though we are out of it.
In fact, just one EU referendum at some point between 1990-2016 would have avoided the tragic final rupture of Brexit. We would have said No to More Europe, a new fix would have been found, the ultimate explosion would have been averted
It is a melancholy lesson. You can defy democracy for so long, but the longer you do it the more likely it is the ultimate outcome for you will be very very bad
The europhile elite paid the highest possible price for their arrogance, lies and complacency
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Well obviously I don't know, just like you, but Harold Wilson's son is a Professor of Maths and brilliant. I studied his work when at Uni. I have to say I do not have a high regard for the 3 you consider geniuses. My sister in law was in the same class as Gordon Brown at school and my wife at the school at the same time and they don't rave about him and I have often thought that in the case of Enoch Powell one can conflate well educated with intelligence.
Just wrong. Professor at 25, then in WW2 rose from private to brigadier in the space of the war. He lacked common sense, but not intelligence
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
John Freeman, Labour's leader manque who became the presenter of Face to Face and an interviewer instead, was extremely bright. Churchill cried when he made his maiden speech, the first speech of the 1945 parliament, and Attlee was sure he would follow him into the Labour leadership. He was behind C.G Jung's last book, a spin-off of his interview with Jung on the Face to Face programme, and he then became a diplomat and chairman of LWT.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Successful scientist? Didn't have a very long publication list, surely, if one goes by that defintion, did she? But then she didn't work in academia. And -quite apart from anything else - she was perhaps the best PM to be confronted with the ozone hole. By comparison ...
Judging scientists by the length of their publication list is one of the problems with how science is currently practised.
Quite; I know that very well from personal experience. But something has to be published to be a fully active scientist in the professional sense. So it's not entirely unfair. Did she publish her u/grad project, I wonder?*
*Edit: not intended as derogatory - often an indication of someone who's serious about a possible career in the field
Secondly, the most important by election was NS. An astonishing fail by the tories.
The Tories still got just over half the voteshare in the by election they did in North Shropshire in 2019. It was a midterm protest vote nothing more, the LDs are an easy free hit in by elections.
The LDs have not held a seat they won from the Tories in a by election at the subsequent general election since Romsey in 2001 and I doubt North Shropshire will be any different
The Tories also lost in Chesham & Amersham.
Only after the last general election
So it couldn't have been just a "protest vote"?
How do we know, the Tories might win back Chesham and Amersham and North Shropshire in 2024
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Successful scientist? Didn't have a very long publication list, surely, if one goes by that defintion, did she? But then she didn't work in academia. And -quite apart from anything else - she was perhaps the best PM to be confronted with the ozone hole. By comparison ...
Did she invent artificial ice cream or some such?
Good for her if she did. Before that the cheap stuff was pig fat - no accident that Walls made ice cream, and sausages. EEEuw.
I'd be interested if anyone has predictions for peak daily hospitalisations this month. Probably quite pertinent to political betting!
2400. Within days. Then the surge abates rapidly.
My view, for what it's worth.
Today's England only number was 2370. I think we've quite a long way to go yet.
Admissions in England started to accelerate around about Boxing Day, which in turn is about two weeks after cases really began to climb, so it seems probably that admissions will keep rising through the first half of January and probably for a little while after that (the case rate is still accelerating, albeit not so rapidly.)
Doing some very crude maths and making an additional allowance for the remainder of the UK, I think that we could hit 7,000 per day for the whole country at some point towards the end of the month - although a high and increasing proportion of those will be incidental admissions, and one might also expect the duration of hospital stay to be reduced for those patients actually suffering with Covid and the proportion of very serious cases to be lower than in previous waves, which will hopefully help the hospitals to cope.
This, of course, is nothing more than a semi-educated guess and I would be thrilled to be proven wrong on the low side.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Projection on your part methinks. I don't think that there is much difference between Leavers and Remainers on the issue. Indeed those most keen on more restrictions are the retired, who are mostly Leavers.
Unlike your theory that Remainers are more cautious, I would say that Leavers are pro-lockdown because the burden falls mostly on others.
The reality when you look at the polling is that there is very little between the two groups in terms of desires for measures in the polling. As ever, it is just possible that your trawling of the nutter end of twitter is a tad unrepresentative:
Er, what? Your very own evidence shows that I’m right. As always
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57 Leave: 39
"Only allowing people to leave home for essential shopping, exercise and work" (a reasonable definition of Lockdown) supported by 21% of Remainers and 20% of Leavers.
So, lockdown advocated by an equal number, allowing for MOE, of each in November.
You didn’t read your own data, did you?
I am sure you are more scrupulous in your hospital duties. For which, by the way, many thanks (sincerely).
I suspect @kinabalu has turned out right, and HMG is gonna tough out Omicron with no further restrictions in England. It will be a bruising January in the NHS. Good luck, doc
I did. Desire for lockdown in November was expressed by 21% and 20% in the YouGov poll. I would describe that as an equal and minority support by either faction. Perhaps your attention span is too short to reach the end of the table.
Yet your mental capacity is so weirdly limited you didn’t read the actual first line of data, which is perplexing and distressing in a medic. Like missing the enormous tumour but spotting the sinusitis.
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57 Leave: 39
That is a different question. The question of who favours a lockdown in this wave, and the answer to that is a fifth of each.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Thatcher got a second class degree, not even a first. She was bright and sharp but she was not over 160 IQ super intelligent
That was in the days when a first really was a first, and a science degree was hard work. Especially an Oxford Chemistry one which I believe included a one year research project added on - effectively an integral MSc by research (it certainly did in later years). She was president of the student Conservative society, wasn't she? So that was another priority.
I had a dear friend at uni who ended up getting a doctorate in her field. Coming up to exams in second year as an undergraduate, she would complain that she had not done enough work, having studied in the library from nine to five. We'd only have done a few hours work, all having other things to occupy our time.
(I dropped out due to health issues (I had an operation at about this time); another lass got a doctorate, a lad a Masters, and everyone else got second class degrees. We've all done okay in life IMO.
One of the things I'll tell the little 'un is that uni is about much more than just studying: although you should always remember why you're there. But neither should you ignore everything else uni has to offer.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
As a young man, growing up in 80s, I detested Thatcher and everything she did.
In my mature years now I concede she was a one in a million individual. Incredible achievements given she was a woman in what was then still definitely a man's world.
Her CV is just astonishing. A titanic figure. Even if you despise her politics
I am pretty sure I will never live to see a PM of her stature again. Of her successors only Blair had - maybe - the talent to match her. But he weirdly blew it, like an act of self harm
A world where the Iraq war didn’t happen is a poignant counterfactual
I see even the erstwhile BJ rimmers haven’t made the laughable suggestion that he could be a genius. Might have been different a couple of years ago.
Well, he is quite a genius. He's discovered how to get paid loadsamoney despite being thick and ignorant, how to succeed in politics despite being lazy and inept, and how to shag every woman he meets despite being very ugly.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
As a young man, growing up in 80s, I detested Thatcher and everything she did.
In my mature years now I concede she was a one in a million individual. Incredible achievements given she was a woman in what was then still definitely a man's world.
I'd infinitely prefer her as PM today compared to that gentleman in the post today, when we have climate change to deal with.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
I see even the erstwhile BJ rimmers haven’t made the laughable suggestion that he could be a genius. Might have been different a couple of years ago.
Well, he is quite a genius. He's discovered how to get paid loadsamoney despite being thick and ignorant, how to succeed in politics despite being lazy and inept, and how to shag every woman he meets despite being very ugly.
I mean, if that's not genius...
Low cunning ain’t it? And as current events suggest, that has its limits.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Successful scientist? Didn't have a very long publication list, surely, if one goes by that defintion, did she? But then she didn't work in academia. And -quite apart from anything else - she was perhaps the best PM to be confronted with the ozone hole. By comparison ...
Judging scientists by the length of their publication list is one of the problems with how science is currently practised.
Quite; I know that very well from personal experience. But something has to be published to be a fully active scientist in the professional sense. So it's not entirely unfair. Did she publish her u/grad project, I wonder?*
*Edit: not intended as derogatory - often an indication of someone who's serious about a possible career in the field
Probably not, but my Part II was referenced in a paper in the Journal of Molecular Physics by my supervisor and I got a name credit.
On this whole “academic” thing, having grown up in a employment graduate world from leaving University a post-career Open University course was a revelation - some of the smartest most perceptive people had left school with O levels or CSEs, while some of the biggest plonkers were MAs. Life is a great teacher, if you are willing to learn.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
As a young man, growing up in 80s, I detested Thatcher and everything she did.
In my mature years now I concede she was a one in a million individual. Incredible achievements given she was a woman in what was then still definitely a man's world.
Her CV is just astonishing. A titanic figure. Even if you despise her politics
I am pretty sure I will never live to see a PM of her stature again. Of her successors only Blair had - maybe - the talent to match her. But he weirdly blew it, like an act of self harm
A world where the Iraq war didn’t happen is a poignant counterfactual
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
I don't think that's true.
That would require that 51% of 48% (which we'll call 24% for similicities sake) are public sector, academia and charity sector. The total employment for those three sectors is maybe 6 million. (And I think it's a real push to say that the UK's armed and police forces are all - or even majority - Remain.)
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Thatcher got a second class degree, not even a first. She was bright and sharp but she was not over 160 IQ super intelligent
That was in the days when a first really was a first, and a science degree was hard work. Especially an Oxford Chemistry one which I believe included a one year research project added on - effectively an integral MSc by research (it certainly did in later years). She was president of the student Conservative society, wasn't she? So that was another priority.
I had a dear friend at uni who ended up getting a doctorate in her field. Coming up to exams in second year as an undergraduate, she would complain that she had not done enough work, having studied in the library from nine to five. We'd only have done a few hours work, all having other things to occupy our time.
(I dropped out due to health issues (I had an operation at about this time); another lass got a doctorate, a lad a Masters, and everyone else got second class degrees. We've all done okay in life IMO.
One of the things I'll tell the little 'un is that uni is about much more than just studying: although you should always remember why you're there. But neither should you ignore everything else uni has to offer.
Yes; one has to decide one's priorities. I was very academic - which was right for me - but other people had different priorities. Of my good friends, only two got poor degrees but one changed career to be a successful software engineer (no, really) and the other had been too busy with drama - but ended up in films and TV.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Thatcher got a second class degree, not even a first. She was bright and sharp but she was not over 160 IQ super intelligent
I find that view quite funny. Especially as I don't have a degree and, by your sort of thinking, must be some form of dribbling in-bred yokel.
The class of degree you get is rarely an indicator of out-and-out intelligence.
Then again, what is intelligence? I've refereed heated discussions between people from the uni where they argue about exactly that.
Agree strongly. HYUFD is assigning IQs with no knowledge whatsoever.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
Hoi! Some of us have one and have examined others' PhD theses.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
I'm no fan of Gordon Brown, but it's perfectly possible to have an IQ of 140+ and be utterly useless at your job.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
Most business was pro Remain. Working classes were more pro Leave. How is that an alternative universe. As someone who owned his own company at the time not a single one of my contacts was a leaver. Not one. These were the ones who were taking risks, not the employees.
Yes that’s right. Rich business owners take all the risks in life, those poor stupid working class drones face no risks at all. They have it easy, the scum
Why Remain Lost, part 287 in a series of 17,000
In the long run remain lost because the political class and elites - whose policies on the EU were on the whole coherent sensible and intelligent - senselessly and unintelligently forgot that if you don't take the voters with you as a whole the other bright stuff counts for nothing.
Four or five referendums on the key constitutional change points would have settled the thing, and probably prevented the EU starting to look like a thing with state like trappings (flag, anthem, parliament, elections, currency, central bank, a court binding national courts) but no defence capacity. Something which remains absurd even though we are out of it.
In fact, just one EU referendum at some point between 1990-2016 would have avoided the tragic final rupture of Brexit. We would have said No to More Europe, a new fix would have been found, the ultimate explosion would have been averted
It is a melancholy lesson. You can defy democracy for so long, but the longer you do it the more likely it is the ultimate outcome for you will be very very bad
The europhile elite paid the highest possible price for their arrogance, lies and complacency
And now the Brexiteer Elite are making the rest of us pay the highest possible price for their arrogance, lies and complacency.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Thatcher got a second class degree, not even a first. She was bright and sharp but she was not over 160 IQ super intelligent
I don't think she had much emotional intelligence either. She was famously poor at humour and couldn't empathise with her political opponents, not even within her own party.
This was the achilies heal that ended her premiership, her arrogant disregard for the Scots, those on the sharp end of the Poll Tax or even those within her own party who wanted a One Nation approach. Hence her defenestration by her own party, despite a comfortable majority and 2 years off an election.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Well obviously I don't know, just like you, but Harold Wilson's son is a Professor of Maths and brilliant. I studied his work when at Uni. I have to say I do not have a high regard for the 3 you consider geniuses. My sister in law was in the same class as Gordon Brown at school and my wife at the school at the same time and they don't rave about him and I have often thought that in the case of Enoch Powell one can conflate well educated with intelligence.
Oh don't start HYUFD on the merits of Kings Norton and King Edward's grammar schools!
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
Hoi! Some of us have one and have examined others' PhD theses.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
Hoi! Some of us have one and have examined others' PhD theses.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
Indeed. I have a PhD and I have recruited a lot of them. I have also recruited a lot of people with MScs and straight degrees. Getting on for 150 over 20 years and counting. You can't judge someone's intelligence from when they excited academia. Someone getting a first after three years and wanting to get out and make a difference can be at least as good in time as someone that drifted into a PhD because they were enjoying themself and wanted to try research for a bit. And generally the ones that turn out best are the ones with good people skills and energy, not necessarily the best university.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
Hoi! Some of us have one and have examined others' PhD theses.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
Hoi! Some of us have one and have examined others' PhD theses.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
(Snip)
I've often discovered that (say) a mechanic who left school at 16 and has a low IQ is really intelligent and more useful than a brainiac scientists if I'm stuck on the roadside and need my car fixing. Or a plumber if I my sink is leaking.
There's a massive issue with smart people thinking they're smart in areas outside their areas of knowledge/expertise, and looking down at people they deem 'dumb' because they don't have some meaningless qualification from the mid-Thames university.
The interesting thing is I get the impression this is a relatively recent thing. It's as if, just in the last few years, experts have suddenly become impatient with anyone who isn't an expert, whereas in say the 1990s that wasn't so much the case. Maybe it's because they feel ordinary people have been making a lot of stupid mistakes recently, like Brexit and Trump, and so can't be trusted as much as they were before.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
Hoi! Some of us have one and have examined others' PhD theses.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Agree. I also think Leon is wrong re Remainers being more risk adverse. Except for the more ideological Brexiteers on here many in the population want to go back to an imaginary warm safe place in the 1950s whereas a lot of Remainers are from the business world whose life blood is taking calculated risks rather than holding down a safe job.
lol
Explain lol
You must inhabit some alternate universe. Remainers are largely public sector, academia and charity sector.
Most business was pro Remain. Working classes were more pro Leave. How is that an alternative universe. As someone who owned his own company at the time not a single one of my contacts was a leaver. Not one. These were the ones who were taking risks, not the employees.
Big business was pro-remain, small businesses were pro-leave.
Sorry to harp on, but I am not a great fan of any of these generalisations:
Older people tended to vote Leave, but there were plenty of Remain pensioners.
Car owners tended to like Leave, but Jeremy Clarkson was a big Remainer.
London was a Remain city, but there were no shortage of Leave areas. And even in the most Leave of constituencies, there were lots of Remainers.
I know Leave bankers. I know Remain bankers. I know people who supported Remain for rational reasons, and those who supported it for idealistic ones. I know Leavers who would personally lose out from Brexit. I know small business Leavers and passionate small business Remainers who won't stop banging on about it.
I know people who supported Leave because they felt the EU was a socialist conspiracy. And those who supported it because they felt that only by leaving the EU could we finally become a truly socialist country.
Basically, it's complicated. And there were very few demographic groups where you could carve out a 3:1 in favour of either Remain or Leave.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
Hoi! Some of us have one and have examined others' PhD theses.
And as it happens, I agree with him. Writing a PhD was a fairly straightforward process. It was bloody cinch compared to my A-levels.
Doesn't it depend on the subject ?
Coming up with original knowledge in mathematics didn't seem like it was going to be trivial having done a BSc in it.
The difficult bits are
thinking of the subject choosing a supervisor getting sponsorship
In the more newfangled sciences there is also the danger of being beaten to the draw by the competition. Mine examined a question which nobody had shown any interest in since about 1700, so less pressure there
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Thatcher got a second class degree, not even a first. She was bright and sharp but she was not over 160 IQ super intelligent
That was in the days when a first really was a first, and a science degree was hard work. Especially an Oxford Chemistry one which I believe included a one year research project added on - effectively an integral MSc by research (it certainly did in later years). She was president of the student Conservative society, wasn't she? So that was another priority.
I had a dear friend at uni who ended up getting a doctorate in her field. Coming up to exams in second year as an undergraduate, she would complain that she had not done enough work, having studied in the library from nine to five. We'd only have done a few hours work, all having other things to occupy our time.
(I dropped out due to health issues (I had an operation at about this time); another lass got a doctorate, a lad a Masters, and everyone else got second class degrees. We've all done okay in life IMO.
One of the things I'll tell the little 'un is that uni is about much more than just studying: although you should always remember why you're there. But neither should you ignore everything else uni has to offer.
Yes; one has to decide one's priorities. I was very academic - which was right for me - but other people had different priorities. Of my good friends, only two got poor degrees but one changed career to be a successful software engineer (no, really) and the other had been too busy with drama - but ended up in films and TV.
Another dear friend of mine from the same uni (QMW, London) got a doctorate in biology. During this, I helped create some Fortran code to do some data munging. After getting her PHD, she went to work creating websites for an international firm. After six months working for the company, she sent me an email to a public part of their website, where she had achieved her first practical work: changing the colour of an icon.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
Hoi! Some of us have one and have examined others' PhD theses.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
Hoi! Some of us have one and have examined others' PhD theses.
And as it happens, I agree with him. Writing a PhD was a fairly straightforward process. It was bloody cinch compared to my A-levels.
Doesn't it depend on the subject ?
Coming up with original knowledge in mathematics didn't seem like it was going to be trivial having done a BSc in it.
Quite possibly.
All I can say is that there was no material difference in difficulty writing a PhD thesis in History compared to writing my BA dissertation. It just took longer because there was more of it.
In fact, my MA dissertation was probably a better piece of work technically and analytically than my PhD.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
iirc he went to uni a year early he was so bright.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
He likely had an IQ over 140 but not 160. Of top rank politicians in the last 50 years I would say only Enoch Powell, John Redwood and maybe Gordon Brown had IQs over 160
Gordon Brown! If his IQ is above 10 I'd be amazed. A plank of a man.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
Brown as a PhD in economic history.
Anyone can get a PhD provided they don't give up before the 7 year deadline. It is a test of stamina and resolve, not intelligence
Hoi! Some of us have one and have examined others' PhD theses.
And as it happens, I agree with him. Writing a PhD was a fairly straightforward process. It was bloody cinch compared to my A-levels.
Doesn't it depend on the subject ?
Coming up with original knowledge in mathematics didn't seem like it was going to be trivial having done a BSc in it.
The difficult bits are
thinking of the subject choosing a supervisor getting sponsorship
In the more newfangled sciences there is also the danger of being beaten to the draw by the competition. Mine examined a question which nobody had shown any interest in since about 1700, so less pressure there
You got funding? I had to work five jobs to support myself doing mine.
Otherwise I think I could have finished it in about 18 months.
TBH working all those hours was what made the process, rather than the actual degree, quite tough.
I see even the erstwhile BJ rimmers haven’t made the laughable suggestion that he could be a genius. Might have been different a couple of years ago.
Well, he is quite a genius. He's discovered how to get paid loadsamoney despite being thick and ignorant, how to succeed in politics despite being lazy and inept, and how to shag every woman he meets despite being very ugly.
“A real, if rather odd, person I suspect. A covid extremist - not surprising they exist in both sides of the spectrum.
At the risk of generalising, I also suspect extreme lockdowners are more likely to be Remainers and extreme anti-vaxxers are more likely to be Brexiteers.
I've no evidence to support that speculation (it would be interesting to see some polling) but my logic is that Remainers were more risk averse on average, Brexiteers more stupid.
(Sorry about that last sentence, I just couldn't help myself 😂)”
++++
No offence taken, old sport, and I think you’re right.
It’s risk aversion. Remoaners are pathetic cowards scared of anything new, and deeply in love with bureaucratic control of everyone, of course they adore Lockdown
Some do mate, I agree. Always a mistake to over-generalise though.
For example, I think most Brexiters are stupid but there are plenty on here who are clearly very smart (if misguided).
Correction: most PEOPLE are stupid. Remember the average IQ - by definition - is 100. So half the nation - half of humanity - has a sub-100 IQ. They will all appear stupid to a smart PB-er
On top of those, you have the apparently clever, educated people, who also turn out to be as dim as all dandy-fuck. eg The Remoaners. Who expected Professor A C Grayling to reveal himself as a dribbling moron? But so it is. And there are millions like him
IQ measures how good you are at IQ tests and nothing more
My take is they are a bit more than that. They test a capacity for certain traits which many people associate with intelligence e.g. logical thinking and problem solving. But that is a narrow subset of what one might think of as general intelligence e.g. they don't measure any sort of creative abilities.
Nor indeed "soft skills". Broadly speaking the ability to get on with folk. Which is arguably just as, or even more, important for many occupations. Or indeed for a happy existence.
Yes that’s fair. Indeed there is evidence that extremely high IQs are associated with autism spectrum disorders, ie a severe lack of social skills and inability to empathize. Einstein and Newton have both been categorised as “autistic” (FWIW - and NB both were still spectacularly successful scientists)
I once read some fascinating research on the IQs of Nobel prize winners in science. The conclusion was that the ideal (and most frequent) IQs were in the 140-160 range. That’s the sweet spot where you are extremely smart but still likely to have good social skills - and you’re able to empathise and build a team around you. Which leads to prizes
Above 160 people get increasingly eccentric (or they so appear to everyone else) and become so clever they can’t figure out why regular humans do what they do - like Spock on Star Trek
Hence we have also likely never had an election winning PM with an IQ over 160
Wasn’t Harold Wilson enormously smart? As in a brilliant Oxford First in Maths or something? He might have troubled the 160 line
Oxford's youngest ever don iirc.
Super smart.
You can make a case for Thatcher too
Successful scientist Successful lawyer Super successful politician And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
Thatcher got a second class degree, not even a first. She was bright and sharp but she was not over 160 IQ super intelligent
I don't think she had much emotional intelligence either. She was famously poor at humour and couldn't empathise with her political opponents, not even within her own party.
This was the achilies heal that ended her premiership, her arrogant disregard for the Scots, those on the sharp end of the Poll Tax or even those within her own party who wanted a One Nation approach. Hence her defenestration by her own party, despite a comfortable majority and 2 years off an election.
She also lasted 11 years as prime minister, won three huge elections, led the nation to military victory, transformed the country’s economy forever, destroyed socialism as a serious British prospect, was a towering figure abroad, and polls show she is now the most revered peacetime prime minister in our history
Not bad for someone with “an Achilles heel”. And her dwarvish assassins are largely forgotten
Comments
Did Freedom Day - an end to restrictions - come too soon? -
Remain: 57
Leave: 39
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-59845833
Should we even call 2 doses as fully vaccinated anymore?
Or maybe not.
PS - have you removed the Boris Johnson foreword yet?
Why Remain Lost, part 287 in a series of 17,000
There's a massive issue with smart people thinking they're smart in areas outside their areas of knowledge/expertise, and looking down at people they deem 'dumb' because they don't have some meaningless qualification from the mid-Thames university.
I think @HYUFD got it pretty right with his sets with @Benpointer added one of the old.
I opted for the 20% severity (i.e. 80% less severe). 50% severity points to a peak of 12.5k hospitalisations per day in their model.
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/zeeman_institute/new_research/combatting_disease/covid19/projections/omicron_projections_21_12_21.pdf
Super smart.
But what I was wondering about was the percentage immune to infection and the R number. If the numbers had kept on doubling every two days, I think it's obvious the NHS would have been overwhelmed, or would already be bound to be overwhelmed. They didn't keep on doubling every two days. But was that because people were holding back before Christmas? What would the effect of Christmas Day itself be? Did people become less cautious after Christmas?
Obviously there are huge uncertainties, and huge risks. I have to say that - obviously trying to allow for time lags - there doesn't seem to be a big difference in the ratio of hospitalisations to positive tests. Both of them have roughly doubled.
John Redwood was (is?) a Fellow of All Souls as well but I don't know the chap well enough to comment.
“I do understand that Andrew, because of who he is, shines a megawatt of light upon the whole affair. And because there cannot be a law for the knobs and a law for the poor, they have to investigate,” he [Maxwell's bro] said.
Successful scientist
Successful lawyer
Super successful politician
And doing all of that as a grammar school girl in a sexist era
It is easier to take risks if you are rich than if you are poor. As the guy who formed EasyJet said when asked about this very subject responded with it helped that his Dad gave him a £1m.
If you are poor life is tougher and setting up a business is much harder.
In fact in my own case I set up my business once I was financially secure.
May I suggest you have just been talking tosh?
I'm sure our media will deal with this responsibly.
Four or five referendums on the key constitutional change points would have settled the thing, and probably prevented the EU starting to look like a thing with state like trappings (flag, anthem, parliament, elections, currency, central bank, a court binding national courts) but no defence capacity. Something which remains absurd even though we are out of it.
I think PB is excellent for learning stuff you'd never usually think about, and that's down to the wide knowledge base we have on here.
I'd also add a really useful skill that is pretty much independent of IQ/intelligence is a well-honed bullsh*t meter.
Enoch Powell, for all his talents, ended up an exiled failure, hated by many
Gordon Brown was a laughably poor prime minister, with no idea what to do despite craving the job for decades
John Redwood has said some amazingly dumb things - particularly re Brexit - for an alleged genius
Was this perhaps the pebble that started the avalanche?
In my mature years now I concede she was a one in a million individual. Incredible achievements given she was a woman in what was then still definitely a man's world.
The class of degree you get is rarely an indicator of out-and-out intelligence.
Then again, what is intelligence? I've refereed heated discussions between people from the uni where they argue about exactly that.
Respectable IQ's - Hague, Rees-Mogg, Patel, and to throw the opposition a bone, Burgo... ah not him Gardiner.
Total planks include - Brown (as above), Burgon, Abbott, Steve Baker, Paterson, Long-Bailey.
On Brexit, all the surveys during and after the referendum suggested immigration, rather than stuctural-constitutional issues, were the centrepiece of the Brexit campaign. It was the year of the migration crisis.
On elites and Brexit, the many plutocrats linked to Brexit simply did a far better job of removing themselves from the centre of the stage than Cameron's arrogant and flat-footed campaign.
It is a melancholy lesson. You can defy democracy for so long, but the longer you do it the more likely it is the ultimate outcome for you will be very very bad
The europhile elite paid the highest possible price for their arrogance, lies and complacency
*Edit: not intended as derogatory - often an indication of someone who's serious about a possible career in the field
Admissions in England started to accelerate around about Boxing Day, which in turn is about two weeks after cases really began to climb, so it seems probably that admissions will keep rising through the first half of January and probably for a little while after that (the case rate is still accelerating, albeit not so rapidly.)
Doing some very crude maths and making an additional allowance for the remainder of the UK, I think that we could hit 7,000 per day for the whole country at some point towards the end of the month - although a high and increasing proportion of those will be incidental admissions, and one might also expect the duration of hospital stay to be reduced for those patients actually suffering with Covid and the proportion of very serious cases to be lower than in previous waves, which will hopefully help the hospitals to cope.
This, of course, is nothing more than a semi-educated guess and I would be thrilled to be proven wrong on the low side.
(I dropped out due to health issues (I had an operation at about this time); another lass got a doctorate, a lad a Masters, and everyone else got second class degrees. We've all done okay in life IMO.
One of the things I'll tell the little 'un is that uni is about much more than just studying: although you should always remember why you're there. But neither should you ignore everything else uni has to offer.
I am pretty sure I will never live to see a PM of her stature again. Of her successors only Blair had - maybe - the talent to match her. But he weirdly blew it, like an act of self harm
A world where the Iraq war didn’t happen is a poignant counterfactual
I mean, if that's not genius...
I think that is correct.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/01/ignore-hysteria-2022-will-year-get-back-normal/
And as current events suggest, that has its limits.
On this whole “academic” thing, having grown up in a employment graduate world from leaving University a post-career Open University course was a revelation - some of the smartest most perceptive people had left school with O levels or CSEs, while some of the biggest plonkers were MAs. Life is a great teacher, if you are willing to learn.
That would require that 51% of 48% (which we'll call 24% for similicities sake) are public sector, academia and charity sector. The total employment for those three sectors is maybe 6 million. (And I think it's a real push to say that the UK's armed and police forces are all - or even majority - Remain.)
This was the achilies heal that ended her premiership, her arrogant disregard for the Scots, those on the sharp end of the Poll Tax or even those within her own party who wanted a One Nation approach. Hence her defenestration by her own party, despite a comfortable majority and 2 years off an election.
And as it happens, I agree with him. Writing a PhD was a fairly straightforward process. It was bloody cinch compared to my A-levels.
You can't judge someone's intelligence from when they excited academia. Someone getting a first after three years and wanting to get out and make a difference can be at least as good in time as someone that drifted into a PhD because they were enjoying themself and wanted to try research for a bit. And generally the ones that turn out best are the ones with good people skills and energy, not necessarily the best university.
Coming up with original knowledge in mathematics didn't seem like it was going to be trivial having done a BSc in it.
Older people tended to vote Leave, but there were plenty of Remain pensioners.
Car owners tended to like Leave, but Jeremy Clarkson was a big Remainer.
London was a Remain city, but there were no shortage of Leave areas. And even in the most Leave of constituencies, there were lots of Remainers.
I know Leave bankers. I know Remain bankers. I know people who supported Remain for rational reasons, and those who supported it for idealistic ones. I know Leavers who would personally lose out from Brexit. I know small business Leavers and passionate small business Remainers who won't stop banging on about it.
I know people who supported Leave because they felt the EU was a socialist conspiracy. And those who supported it because they felt that only by leaving the EU could we finally become a truly socialist country.
Basically, it's complicated. And there were very few demographic groups where you could carve out a 3:1 in favour of either Remain or Leave.
thinking of the subject
choosing a supervisor
getting sponsorship
In the more newfangled sciences there is also the danger of being beaten to the draw by the competition. Mine examined a question which nobody had shown any interest in since about 1700, so less pressure there
All I can say is that there was no material difference in difficulty writing a PhD thesis in History compared to writing my BA dissertation. It just took longer because there was more of it.
In fact, my MA dissertation was probably a better piece of work technically and analytically than my PhD.
Otherwise I think I could have finished it in about 18 months.
TBH working all those hours was what made the process, rather than the actual degree, quite tough.
Ask them if they've run a marathon, as doing that sort of distance is blooming stoopid.
Yes, I'm in pain.
Not bad for someone with “an Achilles heel”. And her dwarvish assassins are largely forgotten
I wasn't aware of this. Quite funny.
(And yes, I mean that. I can't even *walk* fecking marathon distance these days, by which I mean since I was 16, never mind run it.)