Quote: Godot Taxis @ October 10 2012, 5:56 PM BSTartschool
You should have formed an 'indie' band, then. Art school grads have got the 'indie' scene sewn up.
Does one need to go to Oxbridge to stand a chance Page 7
Quote: Godot Taxis @ October 10 2012, 5:27 PM BSTYou claim to be smart but I already answered this question several rounds ago:
"That would only follow if you had to be of high intelligence to be a comedian (which you don't), Oxbridge only took people with ten litre brains (which they don't) and everyone in the country had tried to get into Oxbridge."
I couldn't get your link to work but I strongly dispute your notion that comedians 'tend to be above average intelligence', but even if I accept it for the sake of argument your point can only stand if there are no 'above average intelligence' people who didn't go to Oxbridge who want to be comedians.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200812/the-tears-clown
The website I've failed to attach here details a psychological study of 69 comedians and found them to be 'of above average intelligence'
It's not my notion you're disputing, it's the results of a scientific study. So their sample of 69 comedians versus your supposition.
Comedians tend to be of above average intelligent (not all of them but there is a demonstrable trend)
You tend to find a high proportion of people of above average intelligence at Oxbridge.
It probably also follows that if someone needs to get someone else involved in a project they'll get someone they know and trust, perhaps a friend they went to college with?
Or maybe comedy producers are chin-stroking maniacs holed-up in a hollowed out volcano cackling manically to themselves - "A red-brick university? No room for you on my panel show's writing team. Mwa-ha-ha"
Quote: Godot Taxis @ October 10 2012, 5:56 PM BSTI didn't think we were discussing untalented people getting on because of their Oxbridge connections so much as talented people from Oxbridge taking the places in advance of talented people who are less well connected.
I went to artschool rather than university and one guy from my year is now very famous and very successful. I wasn't close to him but I spoke to him a bit and he really had nothing about him. But even then he was well connected - with famous friends and parents in the entertainment industry. His performance in group 'crits' and final degree show would have consigned him to oblivion otherwise.
A squint at his internet profile reveals none of this. You would think he swam to Britain from the 19th Century and crawled through a hundred storey sewage pipe on a diet of pro-plus and flickering ambition.
I'm not begrudging of his success - however mediocre he is - and his output now is more mediocre than it was then, but rather the place he has taken over a more talented but less well-connected individual.
Oops. Thought I'd added something last night. Godot suggests that there are 'places' from which the non-Oxbridge talented are elbowed out by the better connected. I'd say that the number of 'places' is actually infinite and, as I said in a previous post, if you're not talented then connections will get you only so far.
As for the old art school friend, if he is successful then audiences must like him. So more people think he's good than think he's mediocre, and he has therefore earned his 'place'.
Quote: Trinder @ October 10 2012, 7:29 PM BSThttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200812/the-tears-clown
The website I've failed to attach here details a psychological study of 69 comedians and found them to be 'of above average intelligence'
It's not my notion you're disputing, it's the results of a scientific study. So their sample of 69 comedians versus your supposition.
Comedians tend to be of above average intelligent (not all of them but there is a demonstrable trend)
You tend to find a high proportion of people of above average intelligence at Oxbridge.
It probably also follows that if someone needs to get someone else involved in a project they'll get someone they know and trust, perhaps a friend they went to college with?
Or maybe comedy producers are chin-stroking maniacs holed-up in a hollowed out volcano cackling manically to themselves - "A red-brick university? No room for you on my panel show's writing team. Mwa-ha-ha"
This discussion is now almost too pointless and circuitous even for me.
The article you link to suggests that the study of 69 comedians had no control which wouldn't make it that scientific, as they seem to prefer a smaller study of 43 comedians. And of course the finding 'superior in intelligence' is not contextualised in any way. I also find it difficult to believe in the thoroughness of the analysis of anyone who writes: 'Data were collected'. It's an interesting article nonetheless.
And I haven't been disputing the intelligence of Oxbridge undergraduates, so I'm not sure why that keeps coming up, rather your original and absurd suggestion that their over-representation was somehow explained by need.
Quote: Micheal Jacob @ October 10 2012, 7:32 PM BSTOops. Thought I'd added something last night. Godot suggests that there are 'places' from which the non-Oxbridge talented are elbowed out by the better connected. I'd say that the number of 'places' is actually infinite and, as I said in a previous post, if you're not talented then connections will get you only so far.
As for the old art school friend, if he is successful then audiences must like him. So more people think he's good than think he's mediocre, and he has therefore earned his 'place'.
He's a film director, so the audience probably has no idea who he is. He has no signature visual style and his films are painfully literal and bland. He is far closer to a manager than an artist.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ October 11 2012, 1:07 PM BSTI also find it difficult to believe in the thoroughness of the analysis of anyone who writes: 'Data were collected'.
Actually there is a long running dispute in pedantic circles as to whether "data" is singular or plural. Looking at the Latin, where "data" is indeed the plural of "datum" implies the later, but the former now seems more natural in English where "data" is treated as a collective (compare this with a "flock of geese", say, many geese, one flock...).
But to go back to the main point...
Can we all agree that if you want to be a successful comedy writer it helps to be
1. Intelligent
2. Well connected
3. Hard working
4. Not spending all your time on internet forum arguments. 
Quote: Godot Taxis @ October 11 2012, 1:07 PM BSTThe article you link to suggests that the study of 69 comedians had no control which wouldn't make it that scientific, as they seem to prefer a smaller study of 43 comedians. And of course the finding 'superior in intelligence' is not contextualised in any way. I also find it difficult to believe in the thoroughness of the analysis of anyone who writes: 'Data were collected'. It's an interesting article nonetheless.
Surely forming a control group just for this study isn't necessary if it's comparing general intelligence of comedians against the general population and using standard tests where the general population's performance is already established.
It's similar to if you wanted to study the gender balance of comedians. Then you wouldn't need to form a control group to establish that in the West it's close to a 50/50 split and you could easily find census information for a more precise figure for the general population.
And whilst I knew that "data are collected" is perfectly correct, it still struck me as odd on first reading. Much as when people say dice for a singular die.
I once formed a control group.
But they kept telling me what to do.
Quote: Judgement Dave @ October 17 2012, 11:43 AM BSTSurely forming a control group just for this study isn't necessary if it's comparing general intelligence of comedians against the general population and using standard tests where the general population's performance is already established.
Without a control no analysis has any meaning. If your control is 'ordinary people' you still have to admit an equal number of ordinary people into your study and verify that they're not comedians or would be comedy writers etc..
Quote: Judgement Dave @ October 17 2012, 11:43 AM BSTAnd whilst I knew that "data are collected" is perfectly correct, it still struck me as odd on first reading. Much as when people say dice for a singular die.
The sentence was 'data were collected' which is not correct. Data is plural and uncountable like 'remains' and 'goods'. People sometimes render these in the singular as 'a remain' and 'a good' but they're just ignorant.
"Data" is uncountable, true, but is commonly treated as a plural noun in scientific circles. In general use we treat it as a singular, but the original post was referring to a scientific report, no?
What's wrong with "a good"? I've seen it used in Economics. Not that I'm saying Economists are the best argument against ignorance. 
Just went to Uxbridge. I can advise against that!
On the other hand, Oxtail is lovely.
Quote: evan rubivellian @ October 18 2012, 9:55 AM BST"Data" is uncountable, true, but is commonly treated as a plural noun in scientific circles. In general use we treat it as a singular, but the original post was referring to a scientific report, no?
What's wrong with "a good"? I've seen it used in Economics. Not that I'm saying Economists are the best argument against ignorance.
Well that's how language gets corrupted, isn't it. You see it used somewhere and assume it must be okay to repeat the usage. 'Goods' is an uncountable and the corruption is presumably based on the word being used interchangeably with commodity.
Quote: evan rubivellian @ October 18 2012, 10:00 AM BSTOn the other hand, Oxtail is lovely.
I'll second that.
Never liked oxtail reminds me of school. I mean who came up with making soup out of tail, can't be right 
Quote: Pingl @ October 18 2012, 9:18 PM BSTNever liked oxtail reminds me of school. I mean who came up with making soup out of tail, can't be right
Soup is the poor man's version dear boy. Slow braised in red wine onion and garlic etc, served up with a lovely mash!