« Experiment. | Main | Book Update »

September 21, 2005

Prospect Magazine Competition.

Prospect Magazine (hey, why am I helping them? Bastards haven’t ever offered me freelance work!) is running an online competition. The winner gets to sleep with the intellectual of their choice or something (Chris? Kathy Sykes might be up for it!).

As they describe it:

You and your readers may be interested in a little parlour game we're running to mark our tenth anniversary - after last year's list of Britain's top public intellectuals, this year we've teamed up with Foreign Policy mag to produce a list of the world's top thinkers. Like last year, we're asking readers to vote for their top five from the list, as well as for a single name they believe was unfairly overlooked.

Anyone who answers Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, Tim Garton Ass, Germaine Greer or Naomi Klein (!) Chomksy (!!)  should and will be shot.

Anyone who doesn’t put Terry Pratchett in as the most overlooked should die of shame.

My top five? Becker, Bhagwati, De Soto, Sen, Diamond (for Guns Germs and Steel, not that crazed later piece).

Let us know your picks in the comments.

September 21, 2005 in Weblogs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Prospect Magazine Competition.:

» Prospect: Intellectuals from The Filter^
Prospect are listing intellectuals, and you can nominate your top 5 here. Tim Worstall wants to know who people are voting for, here's my list: Robert Hughes, Lawrence Lessig, Gary Becker, Hernando De Soto, Richard DawkinsAs for my reasons... I [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 21, 2005 11:27:57 PM


Robert Hughes,
Lawrence Lessig,
Gary Becker,
Hernando De Soto,
Richard Dawkins

Posted by: AJE | Sep 21, 2005 10:55:42 PM

Hernando de Soto certainly - he's Peruvian and speaks more sense than that fucking scotch twat Brown, who should be put to the buck for selling the UK's gold reserves at the very bottom of the market.

OK I've had too much pisco in Queirolo's Taverna but WTF.

Posted by: Peter Spence | Sep 22, 2005 2:55:54 AM

I had to go with De Soto, whose easily worth any other 5 on the list alone. Posner was an easy choice too; the law and economics movement is important, and Posner is out in front. Third was Havel, because, well, why not? I agree with Instapundit, incidentally - Havel for the UN Sec Gen slot!

For the last two slots, I was sorely tempted by Sen and Bhagwati, whom I respect a lot, but in the end, I said what the hell, and went with Lomborg and Wolfowitz. They probably aren't REALLY two of the world's top five thinkers, but they probably deserve more votes than they'll get, and three developmental economists just seemed a bit much for such a short list. :-)

(Incidentally, how can anybody have any respect for a magazine whose stated goals include trying to be "more readable than the Economist"? To anyone familiar with the Economist, that comment has to make them invision a magazine whose goal is to hit a readability level more commonly associated with McDonald's placemats...)

Posted by: Cody | Sep 22, 2005 5:07:08 AM

Tim: "Becker, Bhagwati, De Soto, Sen, Diamond"

Is that Sen the actress, Sen the physicist or Sen the economist?

Also, I'm surprised you think so highly of Boris Becker. :-)

Posted by: Phil Hunt | Sep 22, 2005 8:14:38 AM

On a more serious note, what does it mean to say "top intellectual"? I would interprete it as one who has a lot of influence on the world. By that standard, siomeone is a "top intellectual" even if I disagree with their views.

Anyway, I've voted for Dawkins, Diamond, Fukuyama, Lessig and Pinker.

Posted by: Phil Hunt | Sep 22, 2005 8:21:34 AM

De Soto
and Havel

Had the honour of meeting Sen while at Uni - thoroughly nice chap, unusually sparing with his time for probably the most prestigious chap at the place (until he pissed off to America)

Posted by: Paul Davies | Sep 22, 2005 11:40:24 AM

De Soto

A mixture of those who are influential and those who deserve to be more so. Write-in: Czeslaw Milosz.

Posted by: Steve K | Sep 22, 2005 12:00:11 PM

Prospect readers must think compiling lists of intellectuals demonstrates how intellectual they are. It's pathetic.

Posted by: don | Sep 22, 2005 5:32:21 PM

What wrong with Krugman? Did you read his econ papers? Or do you just not agree with his NYT stuff. That is rather nihilistic...

Posted by: Mattew | Oct 2, 2005 7:17:10 PM