[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".