Jeremy Corbyn's intellectual credentials... or lack of.

I'm not sure Corbyn has had a stellar career. He was an MP for thirty years who hardly anyone had heard of until last summer... becoming Labour leader is an incredible achievement... his otherwise unremarkable career

Not necesarily, but academic accomplishment is indicative of intelligence.

You are arguing that Corbyn's lack of academic accomplishment isn't indicative of his intelligence because he had other reasons for not pursuing academic accomplishment. What are those reasons?

Corbyn comes from a wealthy background, his father almost certainly went to university, he attended a grammar school that will have had experience sending pupils to university, he stayed on for A level, he was politically ambitious. Unless you know of some other pertinent fact, it does not seem to me that there was anything stopping Corbyn being judged fairly by the same metrics as Cameron.

The simplest sufficient explanation is that Corbyn simply wasn't good enough to go to university at a time when you had to be in the top 2.5-5% of the year nationally to be admitted. Cameron, on the other hand, was good enough to not only attend arguably the most prestigious course at one of the most competitive universities in the world, but come out with a first. The simplest sufficient explanation is that Cameron is smarter than Corbyn.

So if Cameron was a socialist and Corbyn a conservative you would still say he is smarter? Surely on principle you would have to or else your whole argument is just character assassination.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes. What the hell has that got to do with anything? Albert Einstein was a socialist and he is surely cleverer than David Cameron.

Clever in politics I mean not clever in general. And Cameron is smarter than Einstein when it comes to politics, but not because he went to Oxford.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Not necesarily, but academic accomplishment is indicative of intelligence.

You are arguing that Corbyn's lack of academic accomplishment isn't indicative of his intelligence because he had other reasons for not pursuing academic accomplishment. What are those reasons?

Corbyn comes from a wealthy background, his father almost certainly went to university, he attended a grammar school that will have had experience sending pupils to university, he stayed on for A level, he was politically ambitious. Unless you know of some other pertinent fact, it does not seem to me that there was anything stopping Corbyn being judged fairly by the same metrics as Cameron.

The simplest sufficient explanation is that Corbyn simply wasn't good enough to go to university at a time when you had to be in the top 2.5-5% of the year nationally to be admitted. Cameron, on the other hand, was good enough to not only attend arguably the most prestigious course at one of the most competitive universities in the world, but come out with a first. The simplest sufficient explanation is that Cameron is smarter than Corbyn.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel, despite making no effort to procure it whatsoever, and turned it down. In terms of reward for effort, Einstein is probably the greatest political success story of all time; he just had more important things to do.

What you're forgetting is that anybody who disagrees with her is too dumb to think for themselves and needs the Tory media to think for them. Because the only people with brains agree with her. It's completely implausible that anybody with a functioning mind can look at something and come to a different conclusion to what she does. It can only be the media, thereby meaning we're morons, as are the majority of the country.

This is genuinely her mindset, as it is with most Corbynistas on this forum and elsewhere it seems. They just can't fathom that anybody but a brainwashed idiot who can't think for themselves can have a differing opinion to them.

P.S. Also anybody who doesn't agree that Corbyn is great is just a dirty Tory fanboy....even if you're a Labour voter.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel, despite making no effort to procure it whatsoever, and turned it down. In terms of reward for effort, Einstein is probably the greatest political success story of all time; he just had more important things to do.

Hitler was a political success in Germany too. Being in a high political authority position does not mean that they are smart in politics.


Posted from TSR Mobile

With all respect to whatever exceptions can be dredged up from history, usually a cigar is just a cigar and in most cases a man's background is indicative of his aptitude.

Corbyn is not from a poor family; his father was an engineer and his mother a teacher. They brought him up in this house, "Yew Tree Manor":



He went to a grammar school where he got two Es at A level, after which he went straight to work. His time at a polytechnic studying trades unionism was later in life and a result of his employment by a trades union. He probably did not fail - more likely he dropped out for lack of time or the appearance of better opportunities - but despite being politically ambitious he did not head straight for Oxbridge, London, or even the leftist hot-houses of the day like SOAS and Keele which were comparatively easy to get in to. The most likely reason is that he could not. He is a man with an upper middle class background but no particular intellectual accomplishments.

Corbyn does not have original ideas; he is replaying tracks from the 80s that were originated in his parents' generation. Unlike Benn, he never wrote a book. He has not written for the newspapers.

In a lot of ways Corbyn is like Cameron: a steady-eddie stalwartly championing an orthodoxy. The difference is that while Cameron is championing the current orthodoxy of leading moderate thinkers, a position for which there is stiff competition, Corbyn was victor almost by default, as all the clever and ambitious men who used to share his sort of ideas jumped ship long ago.

My whole point is that people have a general intelligence that is largely controlling of their aptitude at all intellectual tasks, including getting admitted to prestigious universities, passing degree courses with high marks, and governing countries.

Precise aptitude at specific tasks varies, but it's more like noise around the mean of general intelligence; people tend not to be highly adept at manipulating equations while being completely illiterate, even if they are often highly above average at maths and only a bit above average at reading. The main, even if not the only, reason world-leading physicists are not at least mildly successful politcians is probably just that they didn't bother applying themselves to becoming politicians.

A lot of "Labour voters" have seemed to come out of the woodwork recently online. They seem to be spending a lot more time criticising Corbyn than the Tories...

I cannot tell what you are trying to discuss.

I have discussed general intelligence: basically the abilty to acquire and logically process new information to come to a useful conclusion about how the world works. I argue that academic success is highly correlated with general intelligence and that so is aptitude at running a country.

You then re-defined the debate to be about "political intelligence", by which you seemed to mean demonstrated success as a politician. For sure, Corbyn is a party leader, and Cameron is also a party leader. On that level, they are equals. What I don't agree with is that this has much to do with general intelligence. It is possible to become party leader with much lower general intelligence than the leader of another party, if there's a reason other than intelligence that members of that party would elect you. That's what I've argued for Corbyn.

But now you seem to be re-defining "political intelligence" to mean something like "someone who has views that I agree with". If not, by what standard does Hitler - a man who from nowhere became absolute dictator for life of one of the world's most powerful countries - lack political intelligence? I can well concede that Corbyn might be more agreeable to you than Cameron, that his views might more closely coincide with yours. That however has nothing to do with his intelligence.

Pfft, what a small-timer. Dumbledore was offered Minister for Magic several times

Cameron is academically smarter than Corbyn based on grades and the fact he went to Oxford, yes. I don't dispute that he has more to validate his intelligence than Corbyn does.

I dispute that his type of intelligence and even the PPE degree is good for running a country or being in political power. See article I linked re PPE.

Not quite understanding, it seems, that average left-wing voters are neither clever nor ambitious, resulting eventually in the election of Corbyn, who has (admittedly without much competition) the largest and broadest mandate for any political leader ever.

This is utterly deluded. You honestly think the Scottish National Party would abandon it's primary aim of Scottish independence just because they have more power in what they see as another country?

Fine but the question I asked you was this:

"Running a country is an abstract intellectual task so it stands to reason that a more intelligent candidate, all else being equal, will do a better job. The intelligence of candidates for that job is therefore a relevant and important selection criterion. Do you disagree? If so, why?"

You didn't directly answer it but gave me the impression that you did not disagree. With this latest reply, I see no possibility other than that you do disagree. So, I am interested why you disagree.

I do not find the article convincing; a prime minister, by nature of his job, must have an answer to everything, even if he does not know everything, because in some sense he controls everything. PPE graduates probably do not give perfect answers to unseen questions on which they have little background knowledge, but almost certainly give better answers to such questions than the average non-PPE graduate.

I agree except I don't think that applies to politics. Most politicians don't even understand economics because these so called "prestigious" universities don't teach it and the ones that do only teach the left-wing economics.




Posted from TSR Mobile