UK - Boris messes up again

[McHrozni]

The issue with Trump isn't about intelligence or not, I don't know, it is that he doesn't seem to have grasped that there is a world outside of him. He really doesn't get why what he says to one group causes another group to dislike him. He wants everyone to love him for being him so he will try to be what everyone wants for him to be. He just really does not like it when this fails.

So he doesn't bother to learn or think things through. That is not necessarily a mark of being uninteligent in the abstract but he has found he can make the world bend to what he thinks it is and so doesn't need to learn about how the world really is.

I think the problem with Trump is that the term "intelligence" encompasses a whole range of skills and talents that aren't inherently related to one another. One person can be good at some and bad at others. Critical thinking is a hallmark of intelligence, and Trump is certainly lacking in that department. Being able to know what to do and when to get what you want is a fundamental aspect of intelligence, and Trump is quite strong there.

Trump is very strong in some aspects of intelligence and very weak in others. That's why I rate him about average overall.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

You can memorize yourself through many science degrees as well. Not all of them - mathematics is a prime example, and so is physics - but certainly through many: biology for example, and don't even get me started on medicine.

I call rubbish on this - I memorised my way to a decent physics degree form a good university - I understood very little after the first year - my maths simply wasn't up to it

Even so, you're overstating my point. I'm sure that most classicists who graduated with high honors from top British universities are highly intelligent and adept at problem solving. That doesn't mean all are, because the nature of the studies is such that hard work can significantly compensate for a lack of extraordinary intelligence. It can't do so in anything requiring a high level of proficiency of math (math, physics, chemistry to some extent, etc), and you certainly have no way to compensate a lack of talent in any artistic course (music, painting, architecture, ...) and so on. It's not a distinction between science and humanistic classes at all, some things can be learned adequately from books, and others can't. Classicism appears to me to be something that can be learned from books to a large extent. That doesn't imply it's worth less than a course that can't, but simply that making a conclusion based on an observation of a sample of classicists can't be used to make a prediction on every single classicist.

It *appears*, but isn't that an argument from ignorance ?

I'm suggesting that Boris is intelligent based on him graduating with a good degree in classics from Oxbridge. I've based this assessment on the fact that for years I had day to day interaction with people who have graduated from Oxbridge with good degrees in classics (and by being involved in recruitment which exposed me to more classicists).

You worked with a sample of classicists that decided to work in the private field that involved problem solving. Boris Johnson opted for journalism and then turned into a professional politician. I daresay you can't judge him by the sample you had experience with.

McHrozni

You've clearly decided that Boris is not intelligent and any evidence I attempt to bring to the table will be handwaved away like this.

Take some time and listen to some of Boris' interviews. Read some of his articles he wrote for The Spectator. If, after that, you come to the conclusion that he is "dumb" then I guess you have the intelligence bar set a lot, lot higher than I do.

 

[McHrozni]

I call rubbish on this - I memorised my way to a decent physics degree form a good university - I understood very little after the first year - my maths simply wasn't up to it

M'kay

If you can do it in physics you can do it in classicism

It *appears*, but isn't that an argument from ignorance ?

No, not really. It's just an admission that I don't know enough to say for sure.

I'm suggesting that Boris is intelligent based on him graduating with a good degree in classics from Oxbridge. I've based this assessment on the fact that for years I had day to day interaction with people who have graduated from Oxbridge with good degrees in classics (and by being involved in recruitment which exposed me to more classicists).

It's the raven paradox, basically

You've never seen a non-black raven, and none of the non-black you've seen were ravens, therefore you conclude something you heard was a raven also had to be black.

The logic is not necessarily accurate though.

You've clearly decided that Boris is not intelligent and any evidence I attempt to bring to the table will be handwaved away like this.

Well, saying he is not intelligent is a bit over the top, I think. Like Trump, I'd call him about average. He's well above average in some fields, but lacks severely in others. Planning isn't his strong suit, and that is one hallmark of intelligence. In college he was elected as a part of a political group of some sort, his term was unremarkable to the point his competence was called into question. Again, this is not really a hallmark of high intelligence.

Take some time and listen to some of Boris' interviews. Read some of his articles he wrote for The Spectator. If, after that, you come to the conclusion that he is "dumb" then I guess you have the intelligence bar set a lot, lot higher than I do.

Reading a lot can compensate for lack of intelligence when writing too. He's a classicist, so it's rather reasonable to assume he did read a lot. Do you have any links to his articles maybe?

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

You can memorize yourself through many science degrees as well. Not all of them - mathematics is a prime example, and so is physics - but certainly through many: biology for example, and don't even get me started on medicine.

Even so, you're overstating my point. I'm sure that most classicists who graduated with high honors from top British universities are highly intelligent and adept at problem solving. That doesn't mean all are, because the nature of the studies is such that hard work can significantly compensate for a lack of extraordinary intelligence. It can't do so in anything requiring a high level of proficiency of math (math, physics, chemistry to some extent, etc), and you certainly have no way to compensate a lack of talent in any artistic course (music, painting, architecture, ...) and so on. It's not a distinction between science and humanistic classes at all, some things can be learned adequately from books, and others can't. Classicism appears to me to be something that can be learned from books to a large extent. That doesn't imply it's worth less than a course that can't, but simply that making a conclusion based on an observation of a sample of classicists can't be used to make a prediction on every single classicist.



You worked with a sample of classicists that decided to work in the private field that involved problem solving. Boris Johnson opted for journalism and then turned into a professional politician. I daresay you can't judge him by the sample you had experience with.

McHrozni

Hard work from Boris? That's a laugh. If it is a choice between hard work or intelligence you'd have to plump for intelligence. Like many of his ilk from Slough grammar school he has never had to work hard.

 

[The Don]

Well, saying he is not intelligent is a bit over the top, I think. Like Trump, I'd call him about average.

Well you're the one who said this.....

Into a dumbed-down version of Donald Trump, at any rate. Trump is many things, but dumb isn't among them. I can't say the same about Boris Johnson.

McHrozni

Sounds to me that you're saying that Boris is dumb.

I'd say that the evidence, objectively reviewed, runs contrary but I realise there's nothing that will sway you at this point.


edtied to add.....

Here's a a random blog claiming to show that classicists are smart:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2012/01/schematic.jpg

....and remember this is classics from Oxford, not just some random red-brick university

 

[The Don]

It's the raven paradox, basically

You've never seen a non-black raven, and none of the non-black you've seen were ravens, therefore you conclude something you heard was a raven also had to be black.

The logic is not necessarily accurate though.

You're assuming that an unseen raven is white - it's still more likely to be black.

Your evidence of "dumbness" - that he didn't have a successful plan B for the unexpected Brexit vote - means that pretty much everyone in the UK is dumb.

 

[McHrozni]

Sounds to me that you're saying that Boris is dumb.

Well, yes, I was This conversation made me alter but not completely change my viewpoint on Boris Johnson.

I'd say that the evidence, objectively reviewed, runs contrary but I realise there's nothing that will sway you at this point.

And you'd be wrong on that last part at least.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

You're assuming that an unseen raven is white - it's still more likely to be black.

You're right, and it is true that a randomly selected person who graduated with second-degree honors in classicism from Oxford is more likely to be highly intelligent than a randomly selected person from the general populace. This is as far as this takes you however.

We do know more about Boris Johnson than simply the school he went to and the grades he got. We do know, for example, he didn't plan for the possibility of a narrow defeat turning into a narrow victory. That didn't cross his mind at all. We also know he was unable to make a contingency plan in the following six months. We also know that Angela Merkel did have a contingency plan for this eventuality, as evidence by releasing a proposal for Brexit within six hours of referendum result becoming clear, so it was something entirely possible to have in advance. It was also something he had to know would be expected of him in such a situation.

Your evidence of "dumbness" - that he didn't have a successful plan B for the unexpected Brexit vote - means that pretty much everyone in the UK is dumb.

Very few people had quite the stakes in the matter as Boris Johnson did. True, it was about the future of their country, but for Boris Johnson, it was a personal quest to become PM, and the anti-EU facade was there to rally the vote behind him. He wanted a narrow defeat so he could assume the top seat in the country. He didn't account for the possibility of the plan failing and the whole thing backfired. He made loads of stupid comments, plus entirely unnecessary comments that undermine his credibility like the one in the OP.

That's quite a lot different than you can say about pretty much anyone in the UK, short of the usual deplorables like Nigel Farage and his lot.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

You're right, and it is true that a randomly selected person who graduated with second-degree honors in classicism from Oxford is more likely to be highly intelligent than a randomly selected person from the general populace. This is as far as this takes you however.

I think you're being less than generous there. Given how difficult it was (and is) to even get into Oxford - though admittedly was (and is) easier for an Old Etonian than someone from a no-name comprehensive - let alone graduate with an upper second degree in what appears to be a demanding course - I'd suggest that, absent evidence to the contrary, the person in question is highly intelligent.

We do know more about Boris Johnson than simply the school he went to and the grades he got. We do know, for example, he didn't plan for the possibility of a narrow defeat turning into a narrow victory. That didn't cross his mind at all. We also know he was unable to make a contingency plan in the following six months.

How do you know this ?

My recollection of the timeline was that Michael Gove managed to hole the good ship BoJo below the waterline as soon as Cameron resigned. Boris may have had a contingency plan - all we know is that he was unable to put into effect.

Given the splits in the Conservative Party, that's hardly surprising. It's impossible to be sure but from his pronouncements throughout the Leave debate, Boris seemed to favour a soft Brexit over a hard Brexit - a very difficult sell IMO.

As soon as he became Foreign Secretary, planning Brexit wasn't in his remit, that was David Davis' job. Any attempt to interfere publicly would have rightly earned him the kind of criticism which triggered the start of this thread.

We also know that Angela Merkel did have a contingency plan for this eventuality, as evidence by releasing a proposal for Brexit within six hours of referendum result becoming clear, so it was something entirely possible to have in advance. It was also something he had to know would be expected of him in such a situation.

As head of state, Angela Merkel had the authority to publicise an outline (I'd hesitate to call it a plan) for Brexit - Boris Johnson was not in a position to do that - even if he had a plan.

Very few people had quite the stakes in the matter as Boris Johnson did. True, it was about the future of their country, but for Boris Johnson, it was a personal quest to become PM, and the anti-EU facade was there to rally the vote behind him. He wanted a narrow defeat so he could assume the top seat in the country. He didn't account for the possibility of the plan failing and the whole thing backfired. He made loads of stupid comments, plus entirely unnecessary comments that undermine his credibility like the one in the OP.

That's quite a lot different than you can say about pretty much anyone in the UK, short of the usual deplorables like Nigel Farage and his lot.

McHrozni

I happen to agree with you that Boris, though fundamentally Eurosceptic (his articles while covering the EU for the Telegraph IMO created the caricature of the EU the the Leave campaign exploited), wanted to be in the EU whining like a baby than actually out of it. IMO you're also right about his motivation about joining the Leave campaign - I also think it was an internal party power move.

What Boris, and pretty much every political commentator, failed to take into account was the British public's appetite for Brexit. I'm not sure that makes him unintelligent.

 

[McHrozni]

I think you're being less than generous there. Given how difficult it was (and is) to even get into Oxford - though admittedly was (and is) easier for an Old Etonian than someone from a no-name comprehensive - let alone graduate with an upper second degree in what appears to be a demanding course - I'd suggest that, absent evidence to the contrary, the person in question is highly intelligent.

True, but I consider that we do have evidence to the contrary.

How do you know this ?

My recollection of the timeline was that Michael Gove managed to hole the good ship BoJo below the waterline as soon as Cameron resigned. Boris may have had a contingency plan - all we know is that he was unable to put into effect.

Given the splits in the Conservative Party, that's hardly surprising. It's impossible to be sure but from his pronouncements throughout the Leave debate, Boris seemed to favour a soft Brexit over a hard Brexit - a very difficult sell IMO.

As soon as he became Foreign Secretary, planning Brexit wasn't in his remit, that was David Davis' job. Any attempt to interfere publicly would have rightly earned him the kind of criticism which triggered the start of this thread.

There is no evidence whatsoever he had a plan. He might have had one, but none was forthcoming. He wasn't even able to comment on his great victory for the camera on the day his victory was announced. This is quite strong evidence he had no plan whatsoever and was caught with his pants down.

You're right in that it's not absolute proof however, but evidence is quite strong he didn't even consider the possibility.

As head of state, Angela Merkel had the authority to publicise an outline (I'd hesitate to call it a plan) for Brexit - Boris Johnson was not in a position to do that - even if he had a plan.

He was also unable to even produce a comment, a vision or anything remotely resembling anything other than a soundbite or two. To the best of my knowledge this didn't change in the many months he has served as the foreign secretary.

I happen to agree with you that Boris, though fundamentally Eurosceptic (his articles while covering the EU for the Telegraph IMO created the caricature of the EU the the Leave campaign exploited), wanted to be in the EU whining like a baby than actually out of it. IMO you're also right about his motivation about joining the Leave campaign - I also think it was an internal party power move.

What Boris, and pretty much every political commentator, failed to take into account was the British public's appetite for Brexit. I'm not sure that makes him unintelligent.

It does mean that for Boris, but not a political commentator or nearly anyone else. Pretty much every political commentator takes a look at the facts and comments on them. They have no professional stake in it other than being right, and they report on what is the most likely scenario. The worst thing they can do is to make a prediction that will turn out to be incorrect because of factors not predicted by polling and other methods of prediction. It's not a terrible defeat by any stretch of imagination.

Boris Johnson on the other hand campaigned for Brexit, made it a central theme of his persona, and wanted to use it for his own personal gain. The worst thing that could happen to him is what did happen to him - his option won. The fact the margin of victory was expected to be narrow in advance simply underscores how urgent planning for it was. That didn't happen to the best of available evidence, so it's fairly strong evidence he made a rather dumb strategic decision.

The context of the error or mistake is critically important in judging the intelligence of the person that made it. In the case of commentator it is completely neutral, they followed the best available evidence, and it just wasn't good enough. In the case of Boris Johnson, who would be expected to right the mess he himself was instrumental in creating, it's another matter altogether.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Specifically responding to this one point...

He was also unable to even produce a comment, a vision or anything remotely resembling anything other than a soundbite or two. To the best of my knowledge this didn't change in the many months he has served as the foreign secretary.

If he had commented on the nature of Brexit during his tenure as Foreign Secretary he would be "guilty" of overstepping the mark in the same way he did in the incident in the OP.

 

[McHrozni]

Specifically responding to this one point...

If he had commented on the nature of Brexit during his tenure as Foreign Secretary he would be "guilty" of overstepping the mark in the same way he did in the incident in the OP.

Which shows he doesn't know or care about that.

Unlike the comment on SA it would actually help his country. There is nothing but smoke and mirrors on the Brexit front. We progressed from "Brexit means Brexit" to "A Red, White and Blue Brexit", if you call that progress.

The latter has some curious interpretations.

http://thetravelvisacompany.co.uk/images/countries/flags/russia.png

McHrozni

 

[ponderingturtle]

Very few people had quite the stakes in the matter as Boris Johnson did. True, it was about the future of their country, but for Boris Johnson, it was a personal quest to become PM, and the anti-EU facade was there to rally the vote behind him. He wanted a narrow defeat so he could assume the top seat in the country. He didn't account for the possibility of the plan failing and the whole thing backfired. He made loads of stupid comments, plus entirely unnecessary comments that undermine his credibility like the one in the OP.

Like Trump. Trump didn't want to win he wanted to lose while winning the popular vote, that would have been great for his brand and the perfect place to launch the trump network from. Now he has to do this pain in the butt job.

 

[The Don]

Which shows he doesn't know or care about that.

Perhaps he's been warned off - perhaps he hasn't waded in because the "sooper sekrit" plan is actually what he wants to happen.

Unlike the comment on SA it would actually help his country. There is nothing but smoke and mirrors on the Brexit front. We progressed from "Brexit means Brexit" to "A Red, White and Blue Brexit", if you call that progress.

Sounds like a propaganda ground war is being prepared. Whatever organic-fertilizer storm emerges as a result of Brexit, we're being very clearly reminded that it's our patriotic duty to see it through.

My reading of the messages from the government is very clear - we're heading for the hardest of hard Brexits. They haven't come out and said it because the public are largely against it but give it a year or so of beating the drum of patriotism and that situation will IMO reverse.

The latter has some curious interpretations.

http://thetravelvisacompany.co.uk/images/countries/flags/russia.png

McHrozni

More likely to be the Red, White and Blue of the Union Jack, no ?

 

[McHrozni]

Perhaps he's been warned off - perhaps he hasn't waded in because the "sooper sekrit" plan is actually what he wants to happen.

Maybe. I hope we'll know someday

Sounds like a propaganda ground war is being prepared. Whatever organic-fertilizer storm emerges as a result of Brexit, we're being very clearly reminded that it's our patriotic duty to see it through.

My reading of the messages from the government is very clear - we're heading for the hardest of hard Brexits. They haven't come out and said it because the public are largely against it but give it a year or so of beating the drum of patriotism and that situation will IMO reverse.

I hope you're wrong and fear you're right.

More likely to be the Red, White and Blue of the Union Jack, no ?

With a government beating the drum of patriotism to force the public to swallow something clearly against their wishes and best interests?

Not really, no.

McHrozni

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Hard work from Boris? That's a laugh. If it is a choice between hard work or intelligence you'd have to plump for intelligence. Like many of his ilk from Slough grammar school he has never had to work hard.

Okay, it took me a second. But I laughed.

 

[McHrozni]

Like Trump. Trump didn't want to win he wanted to lose while winning the popular vote, that would have been great for his brand and the perfect place to launch the trump network from. Now he has to do this pain in the butt job.

Maybe, I don't know. They are similar, their strategies are similar, their constituents are similar. They even look alike. Trumps' post-election behavior isn't as clear as that of Boris Johnson however. It is possible he wanted to lose while winning the popular vote as a way of promoting his brand, but I see little in the way of evidence in favor of that.

McHrozni

 

[Henri McPhee]

Boris Bonkers needs to be able to speak diplomatic language and not to suffer from want of judgment. He is not a lazy journalist now.

Theresa May seems to be another sentimental softhead Britisher lacking in imagination. Why she supports the opposition in Syria I do not know. She supports Islamic extremists in the Middle East, and head choppers, but opposes them when they operate in the UK, or France. God knows how much British and American taxpayers money has been wasted supporting these people abroad. Charity begins at home. She needs to focus on priorities instead of cuts and closures at home.

There needs to be people of wide and practical experience as prime minister and a clever Minister of Health. Not just a lot of empty waffle and empty rhetoric, like Obama and Blair. and blaming everything on the Russians. Banker bonuses are not the main priority.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Boris made some silly remarks with regard to Liverpool in 2004. England does not just consist of London and the Home Counties as he seems to think. This is from the Independent newspaper in 2004:

In one article, Boris manages to offend an entire city ­ and his boss
<preform>By Ian Herbert, </b>North of England Correspondent</preform> Friday 15 October 20040 comments




231

Click to follow
The Independent Online
Boris Johnson, the Tory MP and Spectator editor, faced the full force of Liverpudlian indignation yesterday after his publication accused the city of wallowing in "victim status" over the murder of Ken Bigley and the 1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster.

Boris Johnson, the Tory MP and Spectator editor, uncharacteristically backtracked last night after the Conservative leader Michael Howard added his voice to Liverpudlian indignation over an article accusing the city of wallowing in "victim status" over the murder of Ken Bigley and the 1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster.

In an extraordinary leading article, The Spectator spoke of the "extreme reaction" to the death a week ago of Mr Bigley and compared it to Hillsborough * a tragedy for which police had been a "convenient scapegoat".

Mr Howard, who has been known to visit family in the city after trips to watch Liverpool FC, said: "I totally disagree. I have nothing but the greatest admiration and affection for Liverpool and its people. [The article is] nonsense from beginning to end."

Mr Johnson, who had initially defended the publication, said: "I think the article was too trenchantly expressed but we were trying to make a point about sentimentality. It's a kick in the pants for me."

The article, unsigned but which would have been written under Mr Johnson's direction, repeats the allegation made by The Sun 15 years ago that "drunken fans" might also have been to blame for Hillsborough.

The Liverpool Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle demanded an immediate apology for the article, which said more than 50 fans had died at Hillsborough (the final figure was actually 96) and delivered the unfounded view that some had "fought their way into the ground".

Mr Kilfoyle, constituency MP to Mr Bigley's mother, told last night's Liverpool Echo: "It is inaccurate. It is outrageous and bigoted and it is the responsibility of the man who presumes to be shadow minister for Culture, Media and Sport. To single out Liverpool as somehow being psychologically flawed is absolutely outrageous. He should immediately apologise for this disgraceful comment about Liverpool, and the tragedy at Hillsborough and the implied insult to the Bigley family."

The leader of Liverpool City Council, Mike Storey, described Mr Johnson as an "oaf" who had "lost all sense of reality".

The article spoke of "the mawkish sentimentality of a society that has become hooked on grief and likes to wallow in a sense of vicarious victimhood". It pointed out that there had been two minutes' silence for Mr Bigley in Liverpool, the same respect offered annually to the million and a half British servicemen who had died for their country since 1914.

It continued: "The extreme reaction to Mr Bigley's murder is fed by the fact that he was a Liverpudlian. Liverpool is a handsome city with a tribal sense of community.

"A combination of economic misfortune * its docks were, fundamentally, on the wrong side of England when Britain entered what is now the European Union * and an excessive predilection for welfarism have created a peculiar, and deeply unattractive, psyche among many Liverpudlians. "They ... see themselves, whenever possible as victims, and resent their victim status, yet at the same time they wallow in it.

"Part of this flawed psychological state is that they cannot accept that they might have made any contribution to their misfortunes, but seek rather to blame someone else for it, thereby deepening their sense of shared tribal grievance against the rest of society."

For much of Mr Bigley's time in captivity, Liverpool's response waslow-key.

Mr Johnson is not the first commentator to challenge the city's response to Mr Bigley's death. Last Sunday, Dr Anthony Daniels challenged Liverpool's feelings for an estranged son "whose attachment to Liverpool was so great that he was planning to live in Thailand".