“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 think her input was into whipping air into ice cream, so it could come from a machine, and be inflated in volume by a cheap ingredient.
“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
She also went through university when there was not much competition from her male contemporaries. Much easier to be top dog then.....
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
Since we've talking about intelligence, here's a cast-iron method to see if someone is unintelligent:
Ask them if they've run a marathon, as doing that sort of distance is blooming stoopid.
Yes, I'm in pain. And I didn't even get a t-shirt or cheap medal for the effort...
Was it an official race or did you just run the distance?
When they open my body after my death they will find 4 hours 2 mins engraved on my heart, being my best time (Loch Ness 2006). Never going to shave off that 2 mins now.
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 grew up in a very 'Thatcher Bad' world too, but also as time has gone by I recognise her ability, drive and her actual coherent plan (in comparison to - at best - soundbites, or just 'I've won! Now what?'). I have a habit of watching old politics shows from days gone by and the Panorama she did before the 79 election is really something (like her or no)
Since we've talking about intelligence, here's a cast-iron method to see if someone is unintelligent:
Ask them if they've run a marathon, as doing that sort of distance is blooming stoopid.
Yes, I'm in pain. And I didn't even get a t-shirt or cheap medal for the effort...
Cheer up Josias. This fat lazy coach potato is willing to concede your utter awesomeness and how I am but a very worm before you.
(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.)
And you've got a doctorate, which by HYUFD's thinking means you're a multidimensional hyper-genius with an IQ approaching infinity. Whilst I don't have a degree, and am therefore dribbling slowly down my chin.
“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.
Fraid so. I am a student of Galen, Galen counts as medical history, the Wellcome Trust has bottomless coffers for the sponsorship of medical history. At scientific, not humanities, phd rates...
Since we've talking about intelligence, here's a cast-iron method to see if someone is unintelligent:
Ask them if they've run a marathon, as doing that sort of distance is blooming stoopid.
Yes, I'm in pain. And I didn't even get a t-shirt or cheap medal for the effort...
Was it an official race or did you just run the distance?
When they open my body after my death they will find 4 hours 2 mins engraved on my heart, being my best time (Loch Ness 2006). Never going to shave off that 2 mins now.
I just ran the distance. I've never done an official race, and I'm tempted never to do one.
Mrs J says she always runs a fair bit faster in an official race, as the other runners help her along - when she starts flagging, she keeps up with those alongside her.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy figures, of a stripe that they thought might be more receptive to her - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, a sprinkling of Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly and be lectured, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982 Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and arty types - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, various Oxford bods - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly as she lectured them, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
I'd be humourless around that crew. The fact they 'exchanged literary titbits' says it all.
Since we've talking about intelligence, here's a cast-iron method to see if someone is unintelligent:
Ask them if they've run a marathon, as doing that sort of distance is blooming stoopid.
Yes, I'm in pain. And I didn't even get a t-shirt or cheap medal for the effort...
Was it an official race or did you just run the distance?
When they open my body after my death they will find 4 hours 2 mins engraved on my heart, being my best time (Loch Ness 2006). Never going to shave off that 2 mins now.
I just ran the distance. I've never done an official race, and I'm tempted never to do one.
Mrs J says she always runs a fair bit faster in an official race, as the other runners help her along - when she starts flagging, she keeps up with those alongside her.
That's an awesome time.
Not really, given the amount of time I put into it. I find training doesn't make me faster, I just do the same times but slightly more comfortably.
Since we've talking about intelligence, here's a cast-iron method to see if someone is unintelligent:
Ask them if they've run a marathon, as doing that sort of distance is blooming stoopid.
Yes, I'm in pain. And I didn't even get a t-shirt or cheap medal for the effort...
Was it an official race or did you just run the distance?
When they open my body after my death they will find 4 hours 2 mins engraved on my heart, being my best time (Loch Ness 2006). Never going to shave off that 2 mins now.
Ha. I did 2 hours 2 minutes in a Half Marathon. What's worse is that until the last mile, I was thinking I was going to comfortably make it, but then I picked up a drink and, I just couldn't get my legs moving again at the same rate.
Also. Mine was in Amsterdam. Which makes the time slightly less impressive.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
Yes, but I think that just shows his simplistic understanding of ASD. Lots of people lack EQ or empathy without being ASD, ASD is found at all intelligence levels, but lower mean than the general population, and there are plenty of superintelligent people with good people skills.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy types - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, and a few Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly as she lectured them, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Total Bollocks. Kingsley Amis, for one, was a huge fan of The Thatch. To the extent that he actually fancied her:
"In the years after the “Angry Young Men” period, Amis grew disenchanted with Britain’s left wing and is now a loud supporter of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. A chapter in his “Memoirs” recounting his few encounters with the politician praises her political accomplishments but concerns itself mostly with what Amis says is a misunderstood personality.
"Although criticizing her education policies, Amis writes a human portrait of Thatcher, going so far as to call her his “dream girl,” drawing new and unprecedented attention to what he sees as her sexual allure and power."
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy types - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, and a few Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly as she lectured them, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Total Bollocks. Kingsley Amis, for one, was a huge fan of The Thatch. To the extent that he actually fancied her:
"In the years after the “Angry Young Men” period, Amis grew disenchanted with Britain’s left wing and is now a loud supporter of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. A chapter in his “Memoirs” recounting his few encounters with the politician praises her political accomplishments but concerns itself mostly with what Amis says is a misunderstood personality.
"Although criticizing her education policies, Amis writes a human portrait of Thatcher, going so far as to call her his “dream girl,” drawing new and unprecedented attention to what he sees as her sexual allure and power."
“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
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
She also went through university when there was not much competition from her male contemporaries. Much easier to be top dog then.....
Not sure about that. She went to Somerville College which was a women's college and AIUI some of the immediate tutorial teaching from such as Dorothy Hodgkin (very intyeresting lady BTW) would have been internal, but the actual lectures, practical course work and degree exams were by the University. And at the university Conservative association she'd have had plenty of competition from the chaps.
Sudden thought: did she spend time in the Oxford Union au Mr Johnson, or was that too frivolous?
Since we've talking about intelligence, here's a cast-iron method to see if someone is unintelligent:
Ask them if they've run a marathon, as doing that sort of distance is blooming stoopid.
Yes, I'm in pain. And I didn't even get a t-shirt or cheap medal for the effort...
Was it an official race or did you just run the distance?
When they open my body after my death they will find 4 hours 2 mins engraved on my heart, being my best time (Loch Ness 2006). Never going to shave off that 2 mins now.
Ha. I did 2 hours 2 minutes in a Half Marathon. What's worse is that until the last mile, I was thinking I was going to comfortably make it, but then I picked up a drink and, I just couldn't get my legs moving again at the same rate.
Also. Mine was in Amsterdam. Which makes the time slightly less impressive.
I did 4:07 in Manchester (which is a fairly flat course). I may have a final attempt at 4 hours next year, having decided I won't do one this year. My fitness has suffered during the pandemic - and now I'm in my late fifties I'm not sure I'm going to get it back to what it was. I only started running at 46 but at some time age has to start overruling training.
It is hard to imagine Thatcher or Gordon Brown having fun.
A false impression. She was quite a boozer, for a start
David Owen in his memoirs describes being in the next table down from her, as she had lunch in a Commons restaurant. After the lunch she got up and breezed past him, trailing - as he described it - "a sexy perfume of good scotch whisky"
She also loved red wine and there's a portrait photo of her in the Colony Room in Soho, which she frequented occasionally
She started life as a prim Methodist girl, but became quite a bon vivant later on. Presumably her husband's money helped
“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.
Thanks. You have missed a bit really. If referendums had taken place at key moments the EU would have developed differently, in particular FOM was never tested in terms of consent by the UK population. Border control is a key constitutional power and a mark of being a nation state.
Your second point while true is also a nice piece of whatabouttery.
Happy New year. I am hopeful about all the signs over Omicron etc. Sanity to return by spring??
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
Yes, but I think that just shows his simplistic understanding of ASD. Lots of people lack EQ or empathy without being ASD, ASD is found at all intelligence levels, but lower mean than the general population, and there are plenty of superintelligent people with good people skills.
Oh do fuck off, doc. I have done endless research on ASD, for a side project. I probably know a lot more than you. And I always make sure I actually read the first line of a paper I am going to quote, especially if it turns out that line is going to defeat my entire argument
Academic bragging was never in ruder health than here on the first day of the year. Carry on chaps, you all deserve the L'Oréal award.
Almost the Yorkshiremen crossed with Lucky Jim and the History Man [no reference to Ydoethur intended, I hasten to add].
I can claim a completely unexceptional intellectual career. My MBBS was from a medical school affectionately known as "the polytechnic of medical schools", graded only as pass/fail. No academic prizes or postgraduate degree apart from speciality exams, and a couple of dozen published papers, none of them widely cited*.
Nonetheless I have had a long and fruitful career with a number of awards for the quality of my work, and I still enjoy it even as I approach retirement.
*my most widely cited paper is full of errors. It took 2 years to get published, and went around the houses, I only persisted because the Professor wouldn't let me drop it. Eventually it found a place in an obscure Scandanavian Journal, but gets cited several times a year, even 25 years later.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy types - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, and a few Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly as she lectured them, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Total Bollocks. Kingsley Amis, for one, was a huge fan of The Thatch. To the extent that he actually fancied her:
"In the years after the “Angry Young Men” period, Amis grew disenchanted with Britain’s left wing and is now a loud supporter of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. A chapter in his “Memoirs” recounting his few encounters with the politician praises her political accomplishments but concerns itself mostly with what Amis says is a misunderstood personality.
"Although criticizing her education policies, Amis writes a human portrait of Thatcher, going so far as to call her his “dream girl,” drawing new and unprecedented attention to what he sees as her sexual allure and power."
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy types - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, and a few Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly as she lectured them, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Total Bollocks. Kingsley Amis, for one, was a huge fan of The Thatch. To the extent that he actually fancied her:
"In the years after the “Angry Young Men” period, Amis grew disenchanted with Britain’s left wing and is now a loud supporter of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. A chapter in his “Memoirs” recounting his few encounters with the politician praises her political accomplishments but concerns itself mostly with what Amis says is a misunderstood personality.
"Although criticizing her education policies, Amis writes a human portrait of Thatcher, going so far as to call her his “dream girl,” drawing new and unprecedented attention to what he sees as her sexual allure and power."
"He also described it, in a letter dated 21 November 1982, to his friend the novelist Kingsley Amis. "The Thatcher occasion was tough going… The worst part was after dinner, when old Thomas initiated a 'conversation', and everyone talked about fawn countries and fawn politics, just like the college essay society. There was nothing in that for me. At last I got the blue flash: 'You haven't said anything yet.' I draw the veil."
He compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes."
Since we've talking about intelligence, here's a cast-iron method to see if someone is unintelligent:
Ask them if they've run a marathon, as doing that sort of distance is blooming stoopid.
Yes, I'm in pain. And I didn't even get a t-shirt or cheap medal for the effort...
Was it an official race or did you just run the distance?
When they open my body after my death they will find 4 hours 2 mins engraved on my heart, being my best time (Loch Ness 2006). Never going to shave off that 2 mins now.
Ha. I did 2 hours 2 minutes in a Half Marathon. What's worse is that until the last mile, I was thinking I was going to comfortably make it, but then I picked up a drink and, I just couldn't get my legs moving again at the same rate.
Also. Mine was in Amsterdam. Which makes the time slightly less impressive.
2hrs 2 doesn't sound at all bad to me, although I know these things are always relative. Am attempting my first race at the distance in Cambridge this March, last minute huge Covid panic flap restrictions notwithstanding. Husband finished one many years ago in 1hr 59 so I'm going to try to do better than that at least.
Trying to keep plodding along at a fairly even pace is probably key to the effort. I puff like Ivor the Engine as soon as I get up what passes for a decent speed by my miserable standards; once I slow down I'll likely run out of steam and the wheels will start falling off, alas.
“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.
Thanks. You have missed a bit really. If referendums had taken place at key moments the EU would have developed differently, in particular FOM was never tested in terms of consent by the UK population. Border control is a key constitutional power and a mark of being a nation state.
Your second point while true is also a nice piece of whatabouttery.
Happy New year. I am hopeful about all the signs over Omicron etc. Sanity to return by spring??
Of course it was Mrs Thatcher who rammed through the Single Market Act (including FOM) in a late night sitting with little debate.
One of many examples of her lacking empathy with others.
Indeed, I see the Red Wall of Brexit to be heavily driven by revenge served cold on Thatcher's southern Financial services economy..
“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
From my experience (philosophy PhD), I think you need to be intelligent to do one (albeit not outstandingly so). People who wouldn't have the ability or aptitude to do one aren't the sort of people who are attracted to doing one to begin with. Having the finances to do one is another thing, too. Unless you've got a scholarship (which I did manage to get), you probably need to be from an upper middle class background to afford the fees and living for four years without a full time job. Universities basically pay you less than minimum wage if you're teaching as a PhD student.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
It's rocketing in Australia now. They are on the UK equivalent of about 80,000 cases a day (although there may be some reporting issues over the holidays) at about half our testing level. I only looked this up because I heard Jonathan Agnew say that Sydney had 10,000 cases and I thought he must have been mistaken.
I don't think anywhere, be it New Zealand, China, or wherever, is going to dodge Omicron.
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.
Agreed. I came to loath my PhD course. Basically my tutor (Hugh Dowker) suggested I should come up with a dozen or so original insights, and said I could be a "lion" (exploring new areas) or a "jackal" (extending knowledge that tohers had done) and both were perfectly valid strategies. I was a jackal, generalising point-set-topological theorems to apply with fewer conditions than usual (for no particular reason), and over three years I sat on our 8th floor balcony looking out over Copenhagen, trying to think of new things. About once every couple of months I thought of something, the other 59 days nothing. It was utterly painful, and I just got through it because I don't like giving up on things.
It did teach me systematic thinking rather more than my earlier degrees had done, but those empty days were just horrible, and the almost-certain knowledge that my "discoveries" would never be useful to anyone even worse. Ever since, I've benefited from people calling me respectfully "Dr Palmer" (especially on the Continent where these things count more), and I've always felt something of a fraud in that regard. Which is not to denigrate the amazing people who are "lions" and really find new, useful stuff.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy figures, of a stripe that they thought might be more receptive to her - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, a sprinkling of Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly and be lectured, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Funny how you skip the rest of that article.
It seems she was formidable, brisk, relentless and charismatic. Which overawed them
Amis:
Amis compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes.
Larkin:
Larkin, for all his protestations about Thatcher being "tough going", was actually a fan. And the feeling was mutual. "Oh, Dr Larkin, I am a great admirer of your poems," Thatcher remarked when she first met him. "Quote me a line, then," he replied frostily. She did: "All afternoon her mind lay open like a drawer of knives." She had slightly misquoted, and this he took as a compliment. "I thought if it weren't spontaneous, she'd have got it right," he wrote to Julian Barnes. "I also thought she might think a mind full of knives rather along her own lines, not that I don't kiss the ground she treads."
Al Alvarez:
In his diaries, Alan Clark talked about the effect Margaret Thatcher had on men. "I got a full dose of personality compulsion," he wrote, "something of the Führer Kontakt." There seems to have been an element of that on this occasion. "I hate to say it," the lefty-as-they-come Alvarez told me, "but she had good skin and a good figure and I found her rather attractive. She also had this dazzling aura of power around her.""
Robert Conquest:
"In a letter to his friend the poet and historian Robert Conquest, he wrote: "What a superb creature she is – right and beautiful – few prime ministers are either."
The rest? -
"Most of the guests fancied her, it seems. Anthony Powell did a straw poll on the subject. "I did some market research as to whether people find her as attractive as I do and all, including Vidia [Naipaul], were in complete agreement.""
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
One other thing about that photo, what is that garment Ghislaine is wearing? I get endless grief from wives and girlfriends for not noticing womens' clothes but Jesus, it looks like something bought in a sale at C&A in 1970
It's rocketing in Australia now. They are on the UK equivalent of about 80,000 cases a day (although there may be some reporting issues over the holidays) at about half our testing level. I only looked this up because I heard Jonathan Agnew say that Sydney had 10,000 cases and I thought he must have been mistaken.
I don't think anywhere, be it New Zealand, China, or wherever, is going to dodge Omicron.
It will get everywhere, but that doesn't mean that it will get everyone. We have seen that previous peaks have abated even with only a minority infected even in places with no or minimal formal restrictions. The peak will be short and over soon in London and other hotspots, but the peaks elsewhere will have different timing and will keep the figures high through most of January.
Even more so when they start adding in the re-infections. Things will start to look better in February.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
It's rocketing in Australia now. They are on the UK equivalent of about 80,000 cases a day (although there may be some reporting issues over the holidays) at about half our testing level. I only looked this up because I heard Jonathan Agnew say that Sydney had 10,000 cases and I thought he must have been mistaken.
I don't think anywhere, be it New Zealand, China, or wherever, is going to dodge Omicron.
In fairness. They've given up trying apart from WA. Take omicron rather than Delta seems like a decent plan.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy figures, of a stripe that they thought might be more receptive to her - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, a sprinkling of Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly and be lectured, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Funny how you skip the rest of that article.
It seems she was formidable, brisk, relentless and charismatic. Which overawed them
Amis:
Amis compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes.
Larkin:
Larkin, for all his protestations about Thatcher being "tough going", was actually a fan. And the feeling was mutual. "Oh, Dr Larkin, I am a great admirer of your poems," Thatcher remarked when she first met him. "Quote me a line, then," he replied frostily. She did: "All afternoon her mind lay open like a drawer of knives." She had slightly misquoted, and this he took as a compliment. "I thought if it weren't spontaneous, she'd have got it right," he wrote to Julian Barnes. "I also thought she might think a mind full of knives rather along her own lines, not that I don't kiss the ground she treads."
Al Alvarez:
In his diaries, Alan Clark talked about the effect Margaret Thatcher had on men. "I got a full dose of personality compulsion," he wrote, "something of the Führer Kontakt." There seems to have been an element of that on this occasion. "I hate to say it," the lefty-as-they-come Alvarez told me, "but she had good skin and a good figure and I found her rather attractive. She also had this dazzling aura of power around her.""
Robert Conquest:
"In a letter to his friend the poet and historian Robert Conquest, he wrote: "What a superb creature she is – right and beautiful – few prime ministers are either."
The rest? -
"Most of the guests fancied her, it seems. Anthony Powell did a straw poll on the subject. "I did some market research as to whether people find her as attractive as I do and all, including Vidia [Naipaul], were in complete agreement.""
They seem in the main to her found her overwhelming, rather than good company. The first quote in the article is of Larkin saying he "shuddered at the memory" , and it was "grisly", but he was also clearly attracted to her, like Amis. They seemed to respond to her like some kind of fearsome queen, humourless and overbearing, but at other times also spellbinding and attractive - in her thrall.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
Royal insiders admit that it might be difficult to persuade the monarch to take away the title of Duke of York. “It was the title held by her father, George VI, before he became king and she bestowed it on her favourite son,” the source said.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
It is hard to imagine Thatcher or Gordon Brown having fun.
A false impression. She was quite a boozer, for a start
David Owen in his memoirs describes being in the next table down from her, as she had lunch in a Commons restaurant. After the lunch she got up and breezed past him, trailing - as he described it - "a sexy perfume of good scotch whisky"
She also loved red wine and there's a portrait photo of her in the Colony Room in Soho, which she frequented occasionally
She started life as a prim Methodist girl, but became quite a bon vivant later on. Presumably her husband's money helped
She liked a drink. That doesn't mean fun. And much of the male interest in her seems to be, frankly, sexual.
“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
From my experience (philosophy PhD), I think you need to be intelligent to do one (albeit not outstandingly so). People who wouldn't have the ability or aptitude to do one aren't the sort of people who are attracted to doing one to begin with. Having the finances to do one is another thing, too. Unless you've got a scholarship (which I did manage to get), you probably need to be from an upper middle class background to afford the fees and living for four years without a full time job. Universities basically pay you less than minimum wage if you're teaching as a PhD student.
When I was active in this world 10 years ago or so there was a lot of debate as to whether it was altogether kind to accept humanities PhD students without making it crystal clear to them how appalling the job prospects afterwards were. It always struck me that to get into a university at any other level - getting an undergraduate place, or a proper job, or tenure - was virtually impossible, whereas you can just walk in to a PhD no questions asked if you can find a supervisor who thinks you fit his portfolio. Perhaps it ought to be harder.
“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.
Thanks. You have missed a bit really. If referendums had taken place at key moments the EU would have developed differently, in particular FOM was never tested in terms of consent by the UK population. Border control is a key constitutional power and a mark of being a nation state.
Your second point while true is also a nice piece of whatabouttery.
Happy New year. I am hopeful about all the signs over Omicron etc. Sanity to return by spring??
Surely that depends on what you mean by FOM.
FOM - i.e. the freedom to work in any EEC/EC/EU country - was enshrined in the Treaty of Rome as one of the three freedoms (goods, capital, labour).
What changed with the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty was the obligation to treat other EU citizens as you would your own (with very limited carve outs).
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
Where's he going to go, this internal exile stuff? Basingstoke?
I thought that people who deserved never to be seen again went to this ConHome place that we keep hearing about, which I assume to be an abandoned slate mine in North Wales?
Failing that, I presume that the Tower of London still has dungeons?
“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
From my experience (philosophy PhD), I think you need to be intelligent to do one (albeit not outstandingly so). People who wouldn't have the ability or aptitude to do one aren't the sort of people who are attracted to doing one to begin with. Having the finances to do one is another thing, too. Unless you've got a scholarship (which I did manage to get), you probably need to be from an upper middle class background to afford the fees and living for four years without a full time job. Universities basically pay you less than minimum wage if you're teaching as a PhD student.
When I was active in this world 10 years ago or so there was a lot of debate as to whether it was altogether kind to accept humanities PhD students without making it crystal clear to them how appalling the job prospects afterwards were. It always struck me that to get into a university at any other level - getting an undergraduate place, or a proper job, or tenure - was virtually impossible, whereas you can just walk in to a PhD no questions asked if you can find a supervisor who thinks you fit his portfolio. Perhaps it ought to be harder.
Since my time, the research councils have set much harder targets for completion (at all, as opposed to dropouts) and completion within a set time, so there is at least some indirect comeback on the dept and supervisor if they pick any duds. But obviously that is indirect and with a timelag.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy figures, of a stripe that they thought might be more receptive to her - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, a sprinkling of Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly and be lectured, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Funny how you skip the rest of that article.
It seems she was formidable, brisk, relentless and charismatic. Which overawed them
Amis:
Amis compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes.
Larkin:
Larkin, for all his protestations about Thatcher being "tough going", was actually a fan. And the feeling was mutual. "Oh, Dr Larkin, I am a great admirer of your poems," Thatcher remarked when she first met him. "Quote me a line, then," he replied frostily. She did: "All afternoon her mind lay open like a drawer of knives." She had slightly misquoted, and this he took as a compliment. "I thought if it weren't spontaneous, she'd have got it right," he wrote to Julian Barnes. "I also thought she might think a mind full of knives rather along her own lines, not that I don't kiss the ground she treads."
Al Alvarez:
In his diaries, Alan Clark talked about the effect Margaret Thatcher had on men. "I got a full dose of personality compulsion," he wrote, "something of the Führer Kontakt." There seems to have been an element of that on this occasion. "I hate to say it," the lefty-as-they-come Alvarez told me, "but she had good skin and a good figure and I found her rather attractive. She also had this dazzling aura of power around her.""
Robert Conquest:
"In a letter to his friend the poet and historian Robert Conquest, he wrote: "What a superb creature she is – right and beautiful – few prime ministers are either."
The rest? -
"Most of the guests fancied her, it seems. Anthony Powell did a straw poll on the subject. "I did some market research as to whether people find her as attractive as I do and all, including Vidia [Naipaul], were in complete agreement.""
They seem in the main to her found her overwhelming, rather than good company. The first quote in the article is of Larkin saying he "shuddered at the memory" , and it was "grisly", but he was also clearly attracted to her like Amis. They seemed to respond to her like some kind of fearsome queen, humourless and overbearing but also spellbinding and attractive.
She was surrounded by the greatest intellectuals of her time, and most of them found her attractive, if not deeply attractive. And highly formidable. "A top class tennis player".
A woman like that is not tedious. She was tough going BECAUSE she was impressive. Daunting.
I met her just once, and I noticed the same charisma. This was a couple of years after she retired. The large room was full of famous people, including F W De Klerk who had just ended apartheid, and given a speech on it (hence the assembly of famous dudes)
Yet she dominated completely. They fawned over her
It is the only time I have encountered true charisma in a politician. And I've met a few - tho none of the famously charismatic Americans, like Obama
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy types - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, and a few Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly as she lectured them, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Total Bollocks. Kingsley Amis, for one, was a huge fan of The Thatch. To the extent that he actually fancied her:
"In the years after the “Angry Young Men” period, Amis grew disenchanted with Britain’s left wing and is now a loud supporter of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. A chapter in his “Memoirs” recounting his few encounters with the politician praises her political accomplishments but concerns itself mostly with what Amis says is a misunderstood personality.
"Although criticizing her education policies, Amis writes a human portrait of Thatcher, going so far as to call her his “dream girl,” drawing new and unprecedented attention to what he sees as her sexual allure and power."
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
Royal insiders admit that it might be difficult to persuade the monarch to take away the title of Duke of York. “It was the title held by her father, George VI, before he became king and she bestowed it on her favourite son,” the source said.
Her Maj, however, won't be around for that much longer, and I doubt that King Charles will be as sentimental.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
Where's he going to go, this internal exile stuff? Basingstoke?
The Pitcairn Islands or Rockall.
The former is not internal IIRC. BVI more likely.
Edward VIII was dispatched to the Bahamas wasn't he?
Only after Churchill threatened to court martial him.
How was that possible? I get the honorary rank, but the charge?
On June 23, the German ambassador to Madrid, Eberhard von Stohrer, a career diplomat, telegraphed Joachim von Ribbentrop, the Nazi Foreign Minister that the Spanish Foreign Minister, Colonel Juan Beigbeder y Atienza, was inquiring on how to deal with the Duke who was on his way to Lisbon, with the possibility of detaining him.
Ribbentrop instructed von Stohrer the following day to forward the suggestion that the Duke and Duchess be detained for two weeks, but not let it appear that the suggestion came from him. Stohrer replied that Beigbeder would do as Ribbentrop asked. The Spanish Foreign Minister then wired Ribbentrop on July 2 that he met with the Duke and reported the Duke's alleged antagonism against the Royal Family due to the treatment meted to his wife, as well as criticising Winston Churchill and his wartime policies.
The Windsors then proceeded to Lisbon, where they arrived on July 3. The British government got wind of the Duke's alleged indiscreet remarks with Beigbeder, and as a result Churchill sent the Duke a telegram, ordering him back to Britain. Churchill pointed out that the Duke was under military authority, and unless he obeyed, he would be subjected to a court-martial. (The Duke had the temporary rank of major general.)
Then came another telegram designating him as Governor of the Bahamas and ordering him to assume this post at once. Nevertheless, the Windsors stayed a month in the villa of Ricardo do Espirito Santo Silva, a banker (Banco Espírito Santo) said to have pro-Nazi sympathies.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
It's rocketing in Australia now. They are on the UK equivalent of about 80,000 cases a day (although there may be some reporting issues over the holidays) at about half our testing level. I only looked this up because I heard Jonathan Agnew say that Sydney had 10,000 cases and I thought he must have been mistaken.
I don't think anywhere, be it New Zealand, China, or wherever, is going to dodge Omicron.
It will get everywhere, but that doesn't mean that it will get everyone. We have seen that previous peaks have abated even with only a minority infected even in places with no or minimal formal restrictions. The peak will be short and over soon in London and other hotspots, but the peaks elsewhere will have different timing and will keep the figures high through most of January.
Even more so when they start adding in the re-infections. Things will start to look better in February.
It's fascinating: it looks like my son (11) got it and is recovering nicely. (The 2x paediatric Pfizer probably helped.)
Yet none of the rest of us in the house seem to have caught it yet. It may be that it'll sneak up on us and grab us in the next 48 hours, but so far despite fairly minimal distancing at home, and despite the fact that Omicron is highly contagious, we're all doing fine.
Of course, the wife and I are 3xModerna, and our 14 year old is 2xPfizer, so we've got some pretty decent protection. Still, I'm surprised we haven't had a mild case ourselves 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
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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy types - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, and a few Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly as she lectured them, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Total Bollocks. Kingsley Amis, for one, was a huge fan of The Thatch. To the extent that he actually fancied her:
"In the years after the “Angry Young Men” period, Amis grew disenchanted with Britain’s left wing and is now a loud supporter of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. A chapter in his “Memoirs” recounting his few encounters with the politician praises her political accomplishments but concerns itself mostly with what Amis says is a misunderstood personality.
"Although criticizing her education policies, Amis writes a human portrait of Thatcher, going so far as to call her his “dream girl,” drawing new and unprecedented attention to what he sees as her sexual allure and power."
Young autistic man confined in hospital’s former storage room for four years
A vulnerable man of 24 has spent years caught in a vicious circle, where confinement makes his violent episodes worse. All his mother wants is a chance for him to have a normal life
It's the story of why Germany declared war on the US. And it's one of those books that completely changes your understanding of a period of history.
In short: Hitler was desperate to stop the flow of lend-lease to Russia (and to a lesser extent to the UK). He was therefore constantly pushing Japan to declare war on the the US, because he felt that that would result in supplies drying up to his European opponents. (In 1942, 40% of Russian armor came via lend-lease.) The cost of this was that he was obligated to declare war on the US: Japan didn't want to be left on their own facing the US.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
Royal insiders admit that it might be difficult to persuade the monarch to take away the title of Duke of York. “It was the title held by her father, George VI, before he became king and she bestowed it on her favourite son,” the source said.
Her Maj, however, won't be around for that much longer, and I doubt that King Charles will be as sentimental.
Parliament can also remove his title and HRH. I am sure some remote medieval castle in the wilds can be found to house him if need be
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
It's the story of why Germany declared war on the US. And it's one of those books that completely changes your understanding of a period of history.
In short: Hitler was desperate to stop the flow of lend-lease to Russia (and to a lesser extent to the UK). He was therefore constantly pushing Japan to declare war on the the US, because he felt that that would result in supplies drying up to his European opponents. (In 1942, 40% of Russian armor came via lend-lease.) The cost of this was that he was obligated to declare war on the US: Japan didn't want to be left on their own facing the US.
Well worth a read.
On a slightly related note, can anyone recommend any good books/articles about Operation Downfall.
I mean I know the outline of it all, the staggering stat for me was that Overlord was the largest seaborne invasion in history and the initial landings involved 12 divisions whereas Downfall would have 45 divisions in the initial landings.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy types - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, and a few Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly as she lectured them, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Total Bollocks. Kingsley Amis, for one, was a huge fan of The Thatch. To the extent that he actually fancied her:
"In the years after the “Angry Young Men” period, Amis grew disenchanted with Britain’s left wing and is now a loud supporter of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. A chapter in his “Memoirs” recounting his few encounters with the politician praises her political accomplishments but concerns itself mostly with what Amis says is a misunderstood personality.
"Although criticizing her education policies, Amis writes a human portrait of Thatcher, going so far as to call her his “dream girl,” drawing new and unprecedented attention to what he sees as her sexual allure and power."
Surely the assessment given by @WhisperingOracle can be accurate AND Kingsley Amis could still find Thatcher alluring.
But he's wrong. His is a total mischaracterisation. Read the Guardian article
It's not a mischaracterisation. They seem both attracted, even hypnotised, but also quite often simultaneously repelled. It almost reminds me of some womens' descriptions of overbearing men that make them feel physically sick, while simultaneously attracted, yet with all these powerful men in a curiously reversed role.
Alan Clark was a very macho male who also seemed to be hypnotised by this reversal.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
BVI - bear in mind he does shady finance as well as shady sex. Permanent grounding at Balmoral with ankle tag seems most realistic option.
What's wrong with York? What have the Scots done to deserve that?
Of course, that's assuming the case goes the wrong way.
I am not sure the wrong way, is the wrong way, iyswim. I thought balmoral because gulags = siberia = north and because the rf don't afaik have 10s of 000s acres of nothing but heather in the vicinity of York.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy figures, of a stripe that they thought might be more receptive to her - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, a sprinkling of Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly and be lectured, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Funny how you skip the rest of that article.
It seems she was formidable, brisk, relentless and charismatic. Which overawed them
Amis:
Amis compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes.
Larkin:
Larkin, for all his protestations about Thatcher being "tough going", was actually a fan. And the feeling was mutual. "Oh, Dr Larkin, I am a great admirer of your poems," Thatcher remarked when she first met him. "Quote me a line, then," he replied frostily. She did: "All afternoon her mind lay open like a drawer of knives." She had slightly misquoted, and this he took as a compliment. "I thought if it weren't spontaneous, she'd have got it right," he wrote to Julian Barnes. "I also thought she might think a mind full of knives rather along her own lines, not that I don't kiss the ground she treads."
Al Alvarez:
In his diaries, Alan Clark talked about the effect Margaret Thatcher had on men. "I got a full dose of personality compulsion," he wrote, "something of the Führer Kontakt." There seems to have been an element of that on this occasion. "I hate to say it," the lefty-as-they-come Alvarez told me, "but she had good skin and a good figure and I found her rather attractive. She also had this dazzling aura of power around her.""
Robert Conquest:
"In a letter to his friend the poet and historian Robert Conquest, he wrote: "What a superb creature she is – right and beautiful – few prime ministers are either."
The rest? -
"Most of the guests fancied her, it seems. Anthony Powell did a straw poll on the subject. "I did some market research as to whether people find her as attractive as I do and all, including Vidia [Naipaul], were in complete agreement.""
They seem in the main to her found her overwhelming, rather than good company. The first quote in the article is of Larkin saying he "shuddered at the memory" , and it was "grisly", but he was also clearly attracted to her like Amis. They seemed to respond to her like some kind of fearsome queen, humourless and overbearing but also spellbinding and attractive.
She was surrounded by the greatest intellectuals of her time, and most of them found her attractive, if not deeply attractive. And highly formidable. "A top class tennis player".
A woman like that is not tedious. She was tough going BECAUSE she was impressive. Daunting.
I met her just once, and I noticed the same charisma. This was a couple of years after she retired. The large room was full of famous people, including F W De Klerk who had just ended apartheid, and given a speech on it (hence the assembly of famous dudes)
Yet she dominated completely. They fawned over her
It is the only time I have encountered true charisma in a politician. And I've met a few - tho none of the famously charismatic Americans, like Obama
I also saw her briefly at a 2001 meeting of the Young International Democrats' Union and she still dominated the room, agreed and spoke with the same conviction and piercing eyes she had had as PM.
Obama was a great orator but I don't think he had huge charisma, not in Bill Clinton charisma terms certainly, even Trump was more charismatic
It's the story of why Germany declared war on the US. And it's one of those books that completely changes your understanding of a period of history.
In short: Hitler was desperate to stop the flow of lend-lease to Russia (and to a lesser extent to the UK). He was therefore constantly pushing Japan to declare war on the the US, because he felt that that would result in supplies drying up to his European opponents. (In 1942, 40% of Russian armor came via lend-lease.) The cost of this was that he was obligated to declare war on the US: Japan didn't want to be left on their own facing the US.
Well worth a read.
Would have been better to have the Japanese invade Siberia, I guess. But I can see how that explanation makes sense of what otherwise seems a self-defeating bit of vanity.
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
BVI - bear in mind he does shady finance as well as shady sex. Permanent grounding at Balmoral with ankle tag seems most realistic option.
What's wrong with York? What have the Scots done to deserve that?
Of course, that's assuming the case goes the wrong way.
Nothing is wrong with York, it is my favourite city in the UK, it was the city where, inter alia, I decided to stop being a good Muslim, proposed to someone, and had my first date with my current gf.
Happy fecking memories, I would move there but for the regular flooding.
“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.
Thanks. You have missed a bit really. If referendums had taken place at key moments the EU would have developed differently, in particular FOM was never tested in terms of consent by the UK population. Border control is a key constitutional power and a mark of being a nation state.
Your second point while true is also a nice piece of whatabouttery.
Happy New year. I am hopeful about all the signs over Omicron etc. Sanity to return by spring??
Surely that depends on what you mean by FOM.
FOM - i.e. the freedom to work in any EEC/EC/EU country - was enshrined in the Treaty of Rome as one of the three freedoms (goods, capital, labour).
What changed with the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty was the obligation to treat other EU citizens as you would your own (with very limited carve outs).
Which wasn’t an issue if you health care and welfare systems were contribution rather than needs based.
This was a problem that was obvious but Blair and Brown didn’t consider it important…
Royal insiders admit that it might be difficult to persuade the monarch to take away the title of Duke of York. “It was the title held by her father, George VI, before he became king and she bestowed it on her favourite son,” the source said.
Fascinating and completely pointless fact of the day - a son hasn't inherited the title of Duke of York from his father since 1402.
It hasn't even been passed down a family line since 1415.
Every time since it has been either ended by the holder dying without male issue, or becoming King.
And that's going to happen again, of course.
(I should point out Edward IV never inherited the title of Duke of York, contrary to Wikipedia, as the title was forfeited at his father's death in 1460 and by the time the attainder was lifted Edward was already King. Similarly, his father was the nephew of the previous Duke of York and almost certainly not the grandson of the first Duke of York.)
Royal courtiers have discussed plans to ask the Duke of York to stop using his title if he loses a lawsuit brought by a victim of the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
“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.
Thanks. You have missed a bit really. If referendums had taken place at key moments the EU would have developed differently, in particular FOM was never tested in terms of consent by the UK population. Border control is a key constitutional power and a mark of being a nation state.
Your second point while true is also a nice piece of whatabouttery.
Happy New year. I am hopeful about all the signs over Omicron etc. Sanity to return by spring??
Surely that depends on what you mean by FOM.
FOM - i.e. the freedom to work in any EEC/EC/EU country - was enshrined in the Treaty of Rome as one of the three freedoms (goods, capital, labour).
What changed with the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty was the obligation to treat other EU citizens as you would your own (with very limited carve outs).
Which wasn’t an issue if you health care and welfare systems were contribution rather than needs based.
This was a problem that was obvious but Blair and Brown didn’t consider it important…
The issue was not that we did not have an insurance based healthcare system and we had some non contributory unemployment benefits. The issue was more the downward pressure on wages and pressure on public services and housing from FOM, especially from the new accession nations. Blair exacerbated it by refusing to impose transition controls in 2004
It's the story of why Germany declared war on the US. And it's one of those books that completely changes your understanding of a period of history.
In short: Hitler was desperate to stop the flow of lend-lease to Russia (and to a lesser extent to the UK). He was therefore constantly pushing Japan to declare war on the the US, because he felt that that would result in supplies drying up to his European opponents. (In 1942, 40% of Russian armor came via lend-lease.) The cost of this was that he was obligated to declare war on the US: Japan didn't want to be left on their own facing the US.
Well worth a read.
Would have been better to have the Japanese invade Siberia, I guess. But I can see how that explanation makes sense of what otherwise seems a self-defeating bit of vanity.
The Japanese Army wanted to invade Siberia, but the Navy wanted to "look south" and invade the East Indies, Philippines, etc.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy figures, of a stripe that they thought might be more receptive to her - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, a sprinkling of Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly and be lectured, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Funny how you skip the rest of that article.
It seems she was formidable, brisk, relentless and charismatic. Which overawed them
Amis:
Amis compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes.
Larkin:
Larkin, for all his protestations about Thatcher being "tough going", was actually a fan. And the feeling was mutual. "Oh, Dr Larkin, I am a great admirer of your poems," Thatcher remarked when she first met him. "Quote me a line, then," he replied frostily. She did: "All afternoon her mind lay open like a drawer of knives." She had slightly misquoted, and this he took as a compliment. "I thought if it weren't spontaneous, she'd have got it right," he wrote to Julian Barnes. "I also thought she might think a mind full of knives rather along her own lines, not that I don't kiss the ground she treads."
Al Alvarez:
In his diaries, Alan Clark talked about the effect Margaret Thatcher had on men. "I got a full dose of personality compulsion," he wrote, "something of the Führer Kontakt." There seems to have been an element of that on this occasion. "I hate to say it," the lefty-as-they-come Alvarez told me, "but she had good skin and a good figure and I found her rather attractive. She also had this dazzling aura of power around her.""
Robert Conquest:
"In a letter to his friend the poet and historian Robert Conquest, he wrote: "What a superb creature she is – right and beautiful – few prime ministers are either."
The rest? -
"Most of the guests fancied her, it seems. Anthony Powell did a straw poll on the subject. "I did some market research as to whether people find her as attractive as I do and all, including Vidia [Naipaul], were in complete agreement.""
They seem in the main to her found her overwhelming, rather than good company. The first quote in the article is of Larkin saying he "shuddered at the memory" , and it was "grisly", but he was also clearly attracted to her like Amis. They seemed to respond to her like some kind of fearsome queen, humourless and overbearing but also spellbinding and attractive.
She was surrounded by the greatest intellectuals of her time, and most of them found her attractive, if not deeply attractive. And highly formidable. "A top class tennis player".
A woman like that is not tedious. She was tough going BECAUSE she was impressive. Daunting.
I met her just once, and I noticed the same charisma. This was a couple of years after she retired. The large room was full of famous people, including F W De Klerk who had just ended apartheid, and given a speech on it (hence the assembly of famous dudes)
Yet she dominated completely. They fawned over her
It is the only time I have encountered true charisma in a politician. And I've met a few - tho none of the famously charismatic Americans, like Obama
I also saw her briefly at a 2001 meeting of the Young International Democrats' Union and she still dominated the room, agreed and spoke with the same conviction and piercing eyes she had had as PM.
Obama was a great orator but I don't think he had huge charisma, not in Bill Clinton charisma terms certainly, even Trump was more charismatic
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy figures, of a stripe that they thought might be more receptive to her - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, a sprinkling of Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly and be lectured, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Funny how you skip the rest of that article.
It seems she was formidable, brisk, relentless and charismatic. Which overawed them
Amis:
Amis compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes.
Larkin:
Larkin, for all his protestations about Thatcher being "tough going", was actually a fan. And the feeling was mutual. "Oh, Dr Larkin, I am a great admirer of your poems," Thatcher remarked when she first met him. "Quote me a line, then," he replied frostily. She did: "All afternoon her mind lay open like a drawer of knives." She had slightly misquoted, and this he took as a compliment. "I thought if it weren't spontaneous, she'd have got it right," he wrote to Julian Barnes. "I also thought she might think a mind full of knives rather along her own lines, not that I don't kiss the ground she treads."
Al Alvarez:
In his diaries, Alan Clark talked about the effect Margaret Thatcher had on men. "I got a full dose of personality compulsion," he wrote, "something of the Führer Kontakt." There seems to have been an element of that on this occasion. "I hate to say it," the lefty-as-they-come Alvarez told me, "but she had good skin and a good figure and I found her rather attractive. She also had this dazzling aura of power around her.""
Robert Conquest:
"In a letter to his friend the poet and historian Robert Conquest, he wrote: "What a superb creature she is – right and beautiful – few prime ministers are either."
The rest? -
"Most of the guests fancied her, it seems. Anthony Powell did a straw poll on the subject. "I did some market research as to whether people find her as attractive as I do and all, including Vidia [Naipaul], were in complete agreement.""
I recall that Mitterand made some comment about her that suggests he probably knocked one out after meeting her too. She's not really my type - her crazy staring eyes, the absurd hair, the absence of a sense of humour and that horrible, horrible voice.
"I also saw her briefly at a 2001 meeting of the Young International Democrats' Union and she still dominated the room, agreed and spoke with the same conviction and piercing eyes she had had as PM "
++++
Of course, I might have perceived her as charismatic in 1993 simply because of who she was and what she had achieved. But the weird thing is, the word I would use to describer her charisma is "aura" - and the same word is also used in that description of her back in 1982 (when she hadn't done much).
Lefty poet Al Alvarez:
"She also had this dazzling aura of power around her. "
Aura. From the Latin aura "breeze, wind, the upper air," from Greek aura "breath, cool breeze, air in motion," from PIE *aur-, from root *wer- (1) "to raise, lift, hold suspended.
A peculiar but definite THING. Not sure I've seen it anywhere else. Maybe the pop singer Robbie Williams in his pomp. And Zinedine Zidane at an airport
I recall that Mitterand made some comment about her that suggests he probably knocked one out after meeting her too. She's not really my type - her crazy staring eyes, the absurd hair, the absence of a sense of humour and that horrible, horrible voice.
Mitterand said that Margaret Thatcher had the eyes of Caligula and the mouth of Marilyn Monroe.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy figures, of a stripe that they thought might be more receptive to her - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, a sprinkling of Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly and be lectured, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Funny how you skip the rest of that article.
It seems she was formidable, brisk, relentless and charismatic. Which overawed them
Amis:
Amis compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes.
Larkin:
Larkin, for all his protestations about Thatcher being "tough going", was actually a fan. And the feeling was mutual. "Oh, Dr Larkin, I am a great admirer of your poems," Thatcher remarked when she first met him. "Quote me a line, then," he replied frostily. She did: "All afternoon her mind lay open like a drawer of knives." She had slightly misquoted, and this he took as a compliment. "I thought if it weren't spontaneous, she'd have got it right," he wrote to Julian Barnes. "I also thought she might think a mind full of knives rather along her own lines, not that I don't kiss the ground she treads."
Al Alvarez:
In his diaries, Alan Clark talked about the effect Margaret Thatcher had on men. "I got a full dose of personality compulsion," he wrote, "something of the Führer Kontakt." There seems to have been an element of that on this occasion. "I hate to say it," the lefty-as-they-come Alvarez told me, "but she had good skin and a good figure and I found her rather attractive. She also had this dazzling aura of power around her.""
Robert Conquest:
"In a letter to his friend the poet and historian Robert Conquest, he wrote: "What a superb creature she is – right and beautiful – few prime ministers are either."
The rest? -
"Most of the guests fancied her, it seems. Anthony Powell did a straw poll on the subject. "I did some market research as to whether people find her as attractive as I do and all, including Vidia [Naipaul], were in complete agreement.""
I recall that Mitterand made some comment about her that suggests he probably knocked one out after meeting her too. She's not really my type - her crazy staring eyes, the absurd hair, the absence of a sense of humour and that horrible, horrible voice.
Austin Powers: "Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day! Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day!"
"I also saw her briefly at a 2001 meeting of the Young International Democrats' Union and she still dominated the room, agreed and spoke with the same conviction and piercing eyes she had had as PM "
++++
Of course, I might have perceived her as charismatic in 1993 simply because of who she was and what she had achieved. But the weird thing is, the word I would use to describer her charisma is "aura" - and the same word is also used in that description of her back in 1982 (when she hadn't done much).
Lefty poet Al Alvarez:
"She also had this dazzling aura of power around her. "
Aura. From the Latin aura "breeze, wind, the upper air," from Greek aura "breath, cool breeze, air in motion," from PIE *aur-, from root *wer- (1) "to raise, lift, hold suspended.
A peculiar but definite THING. Not sure I've seen it anywhere else. Maybe the pop singer Robbie Williams in his pomp. And Zinedine Zidane at an airport
First time I imagine Thatcher has ever been compared to Robbie Williams
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy figures, of a stripe that they thought might be more receptive to her - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, a sprinkling of Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly and be lectured, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Funny how you skip the rest of that article.
It seems she was formidable, brisk, relentless and charismatic. Which overawed them
Amis:
Amis compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes.
Larkin:
Larkin, for all his protestations about Thatcher being "tough going", was actually a fan. And the feeling was mutual. "Oh, Dr Larkin, I am a great admirer of your poems," Thatcher remarked when she first met him. "Quote me a line, then," he replied frostily. She did: "All afternoon her mind lay open like a drawer of knives." She had slightly misquoted, and this he took as a compliment. "I thought if it weren't spontaneous, she'd have got it right," he wrote to Julian Barnes. "I also thought she might think a mind full of knives rather along her own lines, not that I don't kiss the ground she treads."
Al Alvarez:
In his diaries, Alan Clark talked about the effect Margaret Thatcher had on men. "I got a full dose of personality compulsion," he wrote, "something of the Führer Kontakt." There seems to have been an element of that on this occasion. "I hate to say it," the lefty-as-they-come Alvarez told me, "but she had good skin and a good figure and I found her rather attractive. She also had this dazzling aura of power around her.""
Robert Conquest:
"In a letter to his friend the poet and historian Robert Conquest, he wrote: "What a superb creature she is – right and beautiful – few prime ministers are either."
The rest? -
"Most of the guests fancied her, it seems. Anthony Powell did a straw poll on the subject. "I did some market research as to whether people find her as attractive as I do and all, including Vidia [Naipaul], were in complete agreement.""
I recall that Mitterand made some comment about her that suggests he probably knocked one out after meeting her too. She's not really my type - her crazy staring eyes, the absurd hair, the absence of a sense of humour and that horrible, horrible voice.
Not my type either, at all. Not remotely. And yet it is fascinating how many powerful, important men fell under her spell.
Geoffrey Howe was said to be totally smitten, to an embarrassing degree. Ironic that he finally brought her down. Perhaps he felt spurned
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy figures, of a stripe that they thought might be more receptive to her - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, a sprinkling of Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly and be lectured, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Funny how you skip the rest of that article.
It seems she was formidable, brisk, relentless and charismatic. Which overawed them
Amis:
Amis compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes.
Larkin:
Larkin, for all his protestations about Thatcher being "tough going", was actually a fan. And the feeling was mutual. "Oh, Dr Larkin, I am a great admirer of your poems," Thatcher remarked when she first met him. "Quote me a line, then," he replied frostily. She did: "All afternoon her mind lay open like a drawer of knives." She had slightly misquoted, and this he took as a compliment. "I thought if it weren't spontaneous, she'd have got it right," he wrote to Julian Barnes. "I also thought she might think a mind full of knives rather along her own lines, not that I don't kiss the ground she treads."
Al Alvarez:
In his diaries, Alan Clark talked about the effect Margaret Thatcher had on men. "I got a full dose of personality compulsion," he wrote, "something of the Führer Kontakt." There seems to have been an element of that on this occasion. "I hate to say it," the lefty-as-they-come Alvarez told me, "but she had good skin and a good figure and I found her rather attractive. She also had this dazzling aura of power around her.""
Robert Conquest:
"In a letter to his friend the poet and historian Robert Conquest, he wrote: "What a superb creature she is – right and beautiful – few prime ministers are either."
The rest? -
"Most of the guests fancied her, it seems. Anthony Powell did a straw poll on the subject. "I did some market research as to whether people find her as attractive as I do and all, including Vidia [Naipaul], were in complete agreement.""
I recall that Mitterand made some comment about her that suggests he probably knocked one out after meeting her too. She's not really my type - her crazy staring eyes, the absurd hair, the absence of a sense of humour and that horrible, horrible voice.
Not my type either, at all. Not remotely. And yet it is fascinating how many powerful, important men fell under her spell.
Geoffrey Howe was said to be totally smitten, to an embarrassing degree. Ironic that he finally brought her down. Perhaps he felt spurned
Bit old for you, I would think though it seems a fair number would like a pegging by her.
Not my type either, at all. Not remotely. And yet it is fascinating how many powerful, important men fell under her spell.
Geoffrey Howe was said to be totally smitten, to an embarrassing degree. Ironic that he finally brought her down. Perhaps he felt spurned
I remember hearing a story about the time America invaded Grenada, Her Majesty was furious and so was Maggie.
She gave Reagan a diatribe that lasted for ages on the phone, a couple of Reagan's aides were also listening in, they were very angry (nobody talks to the President that way, no matter if she's our strongest ally) and a bit turned on a woman could be that assertive.
“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.
Wouldn't Mrs T. fit into Leon's (in my opinion stereotypical, flawed, and simplistic) autism analysis?
In 1982, Thatcher's flunkies assembled a dinner party's worth of academic and artsy figures, of a stripe that they thought might be more receptive to her - Tom Stoppard, Kingsley Amis, Philip Larkin, a sprinkling of Oxford academics - to try and improve Thatcher's standing with "intellectuals". They all found her fairly bright but incredibly humourless, if accounts are to be believed, and ended up feeling that they either had to sit quietly and be lectured, or exchange literary tidbits amongst themselves.
Funny how you skip the rest of that article.
It seems she was formidable, brisk, relentless and charismatic. Which overawed them
Amis:
Amis compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes.
Larkin:
Larkin, for all his protestations about Thatcher being "tough going", was actually a fan. And the feeling was mutual. "Oh, Dr Larkin, I am a great admirer of your poems," Thatcher remarked when she first met him. "Quote me a line, then," he replied frostily. She did: "All afternoon her mind lay open like a drawer of knives." She had slightly misquoted, and this he took as a compliment. "I thought if it weren't spontaneous, she'd have got it right," he wrote to Julian Barnes. "I also thought she might think a mind full of knives rather along her own lines, not that I don't kiss the ground she treads."
Al Alvarez:
In his diaries, Alan Clark talked about the effect Margaret Thatcher had on men. "I got a full dose of personality compulsion," he wrote, "something of the Führer Kontakt." There seems to have been an element of that on this occasion. "I hate to say it," the lefty-as-they-come Alvarez told me, "but she had good skin and a good figure and I found her rather attractive. She also had this dazzling aura of power around her.""
Robert Conquest:
"In a letter to his friend the poet and historian Robert Conquest, he wrote: "What a superb creature she is – right and beautiful – few prime ministers are either."
The rest? -
"Most of the guests fancied her, it seems. Anthony Powell did a straw poll on the subject. "I did some market research as to whether people find her as attractive as I do and all, including Vidia [Naipaul], were in complete agreement.""
I recall that Mitterand made some comment about her that suggests he probably knocked one out after meeting her too. She's not really my type - her crazy staring eyes, the absurd hair, the absence of a sense of humour and that horrible, horrible voice.
Not my type either, at all. Not remotely. And yet it is fascinating how many powerful, important men fell under her spell.
Geoffrey Howe was said to be totally smitten, to an embarrassing degree. Ironic that he finally brought her down. Perhaps he felt spurned
Bit old for you, I would think though it seems a fair number would like a pegging by her.
Yes. Gotta wonder if there is a sub-dom dynamic at work
Given that I am more D than S that also explains why she leaves me cold
Comments
Not exactly Ben and Jerry's.
When they open my body after my death they will find 4 hours 2 mins engraved on my heart, being my best time (Loch Ness 2006). Never going to shave off that 2 mins now.
I grew up in a very 'Thatcher Bad' world too, but also as time has gone by I recognise her ability, drive and her actual coherent plan (in comparison to - at best - soundbites, or just 'I've won! Now what?'). I have a habit of watching old politics shows from days gone by and the Panorama she did before the 79 election is really something (like her or no)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2xpcO7tNT4
Hence proving my point.
Mrs J says she always runs a fair bit faster in an official race, as the other runners help her along - when she starts flagging, she keeps up with those alongside her.
That's an awesome time.
Also. Mine was in Amsterdam. Which makes the time slightly less impressive.
"In the years after the “Angry Young Men” period, Amis grew disenchanted with Britain’s left wing and is now a loud supporter of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. A chapter in his “Memoirs” recounting his few encounters with the politician praises her political accomplishments but concerns itself mostly with what Amis says is a misunderstood personality.
"Although criticizing her education policies, Amis writes a human portrait of Thatcher, going so far as to call her his “dream girl,” drawing new and unprecedented attention to what he sees as her sexual allure and power."
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-08-06-vw-643-story.html
BBC News - Coronavirus pandemic: Antarctic outpost hit by Covid-19 outbreak
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59848160
Sudden thought: did she spend time in the Oxford Union au Mr Johnson, or was that too frivolous?
David Owen in his memoirs describes being in the next table down from her, as she had lunch in a Commons restaurant. After the lunch she got up and breezed past him, trailing - as he described it - "a sexy perfume of good scotch whisky"
She also loved red wine and there's a portrait photo of her in the Colony Room in Soho, which she frequented occasionally
She started life as a prim Methodist girl, but became quite a bon vivant later on. Presumably her husband's money helped
Your second point while true is also a nice piece of whatabouttery.
Happy New year. I am hopeful about all the signs over Omicron etc. Sanity to return by spring??
Nonetheless I have had a long and fruitful career with a number of awards for the quality of my work, and I still enjoy it even as I approach retirement.
*my most widely cited paper is full of errors. It took 2 years to get published, and went around the houses, I only persisted because the Professor wouldn't let me drop it. Eventually it found a place in an obscure Scandanavian Journal, but gets cited several times a year, even 25 years later.
"He also described it, in a letter dated 21 November 1982, to his friend the novelist Kingsley Amis. "The Thatcher occasion was tough going… The worst part was after dinner, when old Thomas initiated a 'conversation', and everyone talked about fawn countries and fawn politics, just like the college essay society. There was nothing in that for me. At last I got the blue flash: 'You haven't said anything yet.' I draw the veil."
He compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes."
Trying to keep plodding along at a fairly even pace is probably key to the effort. I puff like Ivor the Engine as soon as I get up what passes for a decent speed by my miserable standards; once I slow down I'll likely run out of steam and the wheels will start falling off, alas.
One of many examples of her lacking empathy with others.
Indeed, I see the Red Wall of Brexit to be heavily driven by revenge served cold on Thatcher's southern Financial services economy..
Having the finances to do one is another thing, too. Unless you've got a scholarship (which I did manage to get), you probably need to be from an upper middle class background to afford the fees and living for four years without a full time job. Universities basically pay you less than minimum wage if you're teaching as a PhD student.
Prince Andrew would also be asked to give up his remaining links to charities and would be sent into a form of “internal exile”, according to ideas being debated in the royal household.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-may-be-cast-into-royal-exile-if-he-loses-virginia-giuffre-sex-case-h2fngbdr9
I don't think anywhere, be it New Zealand, China, or wherever, is going to dodge Omicron.
It did teach me systematic thinking rather more than my earlier degrees had done, but those empty days were just horrible, and the almost-certain knowledge that my "discoveries" would never be useful to anyone even worse. Ever since, I've benefited from people calling me respectfully "Dr Palmer" (especially on the Continent where these things count more), and I've always felt something of a fraud in that regard. Which is not to denigrate the amazing people who are "lions" and really find new, useful stuff.
And reflecting this is the year for the 60th.
It seems she was formidable, brisk, relentless and charismatic. Which overawed them
Amis:
Amis compared watching her that night to watching a top-class tennis player: "No 'Uh huh, well, what do other people think about that?', just bang back over the net. I noticed she didn't laugh much, or make jokes.
Larkin:
Larkin, for all his protestations about Thatcher being "tough going", was actually a fan. And the feeling was mutual. "Oh, Dr Larkin, I am a great admirer of your poems," Thatcher remarked when she first met him. "Quote me a line, then," he replied frostily. She did: "All afternoon her mind lay open like a drawer of knives." She had slightly misquoted, and this he took as a compliment. "I thought if it weren't spontaneous, she'd have got it right," he wrote to Julian Barnes. "I also thought she might think a mind full of knives rather along her own lines, not that I don't kiss the ground she treads."
Al Alvarez:
In his diaries, Alan Clark talked about the effect Margaret Thatcher had on men. "I got a full dose of personality compulsion," he wrote, "something of the Führer Kontakt." There seems to have been an element of that on this occasion. "I hate to say it," the lefty-as-they-come Alvarez told me, "but she had good skin and a good figure and I found her rather attractive. She also had this dazzling aura of power around her.""
Robert Conquest:
"In a letter to his friend the poet and historian Robert Conquest, he wrote: "What a superb creature she is – right and beautiful – few prime ministers are either."
The rest? -
"Most of the guests fancied her, it seems. Anthony Powell did a straw poll on the subject. "I did some market research as to whether people find her as attractive as I do and all, including Vidia [Naipaul], were in complete agreement.""
lol
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2013/dec/07/dinner-with-margaret-thatcher-literary
One other thing about that photo, what is that garment Ghislaine is wearing? I get endless grief from wives and girlfriends for not noticing womens' clothes but Jesus, it looks like something bought in a sale at C&A in 1970
Even more so when they start adding in the re-infections. Things will start to look better in February.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXdVhiOKRB0
FOM - i.e. the freedom to work in any EEC/EC/EU country - was enshrined in the Treaty of Rome as one of the three freedoms (goods, capital, labour).
What changed with the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty was the obligation to treat other EU citizens as you would your own (with very limited carve outs).
Failing that, I presume that the Tower of London still has dungeons?
A woman like that is not tedious. She was tough going BECAUSE she was impressive. Daunting.
I met her just once, and I noticed the same charisma. This was a couple of years after she retired. The large room was full of famous people, including F W De Klerk who had just ended apartheid, and given a speech on it (hence the assembly of famous dudes)
Yet she dominated completely. They fawned over her
It is the only time I have encountered true charisma in a politician. And I've met a few - tho none of the famously charismatic Americans, like Obama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islands#Sexual_misconduct_in_modern_times
BVI - bear in mind he does shady finance as well as shady sex. Permanent grounding at Balmoral with ankle tag seems most realistic option.
Ribbentrop instructed von Stohrer the following day to forward the suggestion that the Duke and Duchess be detained for two weeks, but not let it appear that the suggestion came from him. Stohrer replied that Beigbeder would do as Ribbentrop asked. The Spanish Foreign Minister then wired Ribbentrop on July 2 that he met with the Duke and reported the Duke's alleged antagonism against the Royal Family due to the treatment meted to his wife, as well as criticising Winston Churchill and his wartime policies.
The Windsors then proceeded to Lisbon, where they arrived on July 3. The British government got wind of the Duke's alleged indiscreet remarks with Beigbeder, and as a result Churchill sent the Duke a telegram, ordering him back to Britain. Churchill pointed out that the Duke was under military authority, and unless he obeyed, he would be subjected to a court-martial. (The Duke had the temporary rank of major general.)
Then came another telegram designating him as Governor of the Bahamas and ordering him to assume this post at once. Nevertheless, the Windsors stayed a month in the villa of Ricardo do Espirito Santo Silva, a banker (Banco Espírito Santo) said to have pro-Nazi sympathies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Willi
Of course, that's assuming the case goes the wrong way.
Yet none of the rest of us in the house seem to have caught it yet. It may be that it'll sneak up on us and grab us in the next 48 hours, but so far despite fairly minimal distancing at home, and despite the fact that Omicron is highly contagious, we're all doing fine.
Of course, the wife and I are 3xModerna, and our 14 year old is 2xPfizer, so we've got some pretty decent protection. Still, I'm surprised we haven't had a mild case ourselves yet.
A vulnerable man of 24 has spent years caught in a vicious circle, where confinement makes his violent episodes worse. All his mother wants is a chance for him to have a normal life
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/young-autistic-man-confined-in-hospitals-former-storage-room-for-four-years-lcp8pn26p
Hitler's American Gamble.
It's the story of why Germany declared war on the US. And it's one of those books that completely changes your understanding of a period of history.
In short: Hitler was desperate to stop the flow of lend-lease to Russia (and to a lesser extent to the UK). He was therefore constantly pushing Japan to declare war on the the US, because he felt that that would result in supplies drying up to his European opponents. (In 1942, 40% of Russian armor came via lend-lease.) The cost of this was that he was obligated to declare war on the US: Japan didn't want to be left on their own facing the US.
Well worth a read.
There he will sit and sulk and that is why they will be called the Peed Off Isles.
I mean I know the outline of it all, the staggering stat for me was that Overlord was the largest seaborne invasion in history and the initial landings involved 12 divisions whereas Downfall would have 45 divisions in the initial landings.
Alan Clark was a very macho male who also seemed to be hypnotised by this reversal.
Obama was a great orator but I don't think he had huge charisma, not in Bill Clinton charisma terms certainly, even Trump was more charismatic
https://twitter.com/chrisceohopson/status/1477263146779910149?s=21
Happy fecking memories, I would move there but for the regular flooding.
This was a problem that was obvious but Blair and Brown didn’t consider it important…
It hasn't even been passed down a family line since 1415.
Every time since it has been either ended by the holder dying without male issue, or becoming King.
And that's going to happen again, of course.
(I should point out Edward IV never inherited the title of Duke of York, contrary to Wikipedia, as the title was forfeited at his father's death in 1460 and by the time the attainder was lifted Edward was already King. Similarly, his father was the nephew of the previous Duke of York and almost certainly not the grandson of the first Duke of York.)
A plague I'd lock myself down for years to avoid.
The issue was more the downward pressure on wages and pressure on public services and housing from FOM, especially from the new accession nations. Blair exacerbated it by refusing to impose transition controls in 2004
"I also saw her briefly at a 2001 meeting of the Young International Democrats' Union and she still dominated the room, agreed and spoke with the same conviction and piercing eyes she had had as PM "
++++
Of course, I might have perceived her as charismatic in 1993 simply because of who she was and what she had achieved. But the weird thing is, the word I would use to describer her charisma is "aura" - and the same word is also used in that description of her back in 1982 (when she hadn't done much).
Lefty poet Al Alvarez:
"She also had this dazzling aura of power around her. "
Aura. From the Latin aura "breeze, wind, the upper air," from Greek aura "breath, cool breeze, air in motion," from PIE *aur-, from root *wer- (1) "to raise, lift, hold suspended.
A peculiar but definite THING. Not sure I've seen it anywhere else. Maybe the pop singer Robbie Williams in his pomp. And Zinedine Zidane at an airport
Geoffrey Howe was said to be totally smitten, to an embarrassing degree. Ironic that he finally brought her down. Perhaps he felt spurned
She gave Reagan a diatribe that lasted for ages on the phone, a couple of Reagan's aides were also listening in, they were very angry (nobody talks to the President that way, no matter if she's our strongest ally) and a bit turned on a woman could be that assertive.
Given that I am more D than S that also explains why she leaves me cold
7pm is the new lagershed, right?