[dalke]

I don't understand your comment.

I have never met a "disinterested academic". To the contrary, most academics are quite interested and many are enthusiastic about their area of study.

Many are also involved in outreach, to get others interested in their research topic. This includes researchers who write and sell books meant for the general public, and, yes, to affect policy.

[vannevar]

"Disinterested" in this context refers to self-interest, such as a financial interest in the outcome, as opposed to an interest in the truth. The language used by the author in the interview seemed exaggerated, and aimed at taking advantage of the prevailing anti-government populism, rather than shedding any real light on it.

We have a republican form of government here in the US, rather than a direct democracy. Of course subject-matter experts in government are going to say that they shouldn't rely on the judgment of the public at large. That's a far cry from calling them morons.

[dalke]

Is your objection that the results were published in a book, where the authors can make some money from it?

If so, do you not realize that many or even most academics publish a book, with the potential to earn royalties? Usually it's not enough to justify the time, in that other options, like consulting on the side, are more profitable. Profit is low on the list of why to write a book. Prestige in the academic world is higher. A book full of unsubstantiated claptrap is less likely to lead to long-term career advancement.

Perhaps the most famous policy-related book from an academic in the last few years is Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century." It has had millions of sales. Do you consider him "disinterested" as a result?

Also, which language do you refer to? Is it:

> The federal bureaucrats, think tank leaders, and congressional staff members they surveyed, Ginsberg said in an interview with VICE News, "have no idea what Americans think and they don't care. They think Americans are stupid and should do what they are told."

Or is it:

> If the public resists, Ginsberg told VICE News, then bureaucrats "nudge people into obedience."

Those are the only two quotes by an author of the report.

The first appears to be backed by survey results. Quoting the publisher's overview:

> They found a significant chasm between what official Washington assumes they know about average Americans and the actual opinions and attitudes of American citizens. Even in such basic areas as life circumstances (e.g., income levels, employment, racial makeup) the surveys revealed surprising inaccuracies. And when it comes to policy issues–on such crucial issues as defense, crime, social security, welfare, public education, and the environment–officials’ perceptions of the public’s knowledge and positions are often wide of the mark. Compounding this ignorance is a pervasive attitude of smug dismissiveness toward the citizenry and little sense of accountability. As a result, bureaucrats tend to follow their own preferences without much reference to the opinions of the public.

In addition, the recommended solution is not direct democracy, as you somehow conclude. That is, the blurb continues:

> The authors conclude with recommendations to narrow the gap between official perceptions of the American public and the actual facts. These include shorter terms, rotation from the Washington beltway to local offices, compulsory training in the responsibilities of public office, and better civic education for ordinary citizens in the realities of government and politics.

The second quote is unsurprising. Nudge theory is popular with some politicians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory describes it as "a concept ... to try to achieve non-forced compliance", and points to use by government:

> Most recently, the political machinery of both President Barack Obama in the United States and Prime Minister David Cameron in the UK have sought to employ Nudge Theory to advance their respective domestic policy goals.

I therefore disagree with the justification for your objection.

[vannevar]

Is your objection that the results were published in a book, where the authors can make some money from it?

No. My objection is based on the tone of the author's remarks (and yes, those are the quotes), in particular the use of inflammatory language, and the lack of acknowledgment of the obvious fact that bureaucrats are expected to value their own opinion above the general population, just as professors are expected to value their opinion over laymen. How many of the survey subjects do you think would agree with Ginsberg's assessment that they really think Americans are "stupid"?

I disagree with your rationalization of Ginsberg's remarks and find them ill-informed and unsupported, but for the record, that doesn't mean I think you're stupid.

[dalke]

Which takes me back to the question of what you mean by "disinterested academic". You implied it meant there was a monetary conflict of interest, but now you imply that it's something to do with tone?

[vannevar]

No. Two different topics, but one is related to the other. If a researcher has a financial interest in the outcome of a study (such as a book for sale), that's suspect but not necessarily disqualifying. What makes it disqualifying in this case is that the inflammatory language so transparently plays into the current wave of political populism in order to sell more books. Since you bring up Piketty, contrast his remarks about his research to Ginsberg's: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/qa-thomas-piket.... Does Piketty demonize the wealthy the way Ginsberg demonizes his subjects? Had Ginsberg been trying to promote Piketty's book, he would've peppered the interview with phrases like "greedy fat cats stealing from the poor".