David Zetland: "It's hard work being so pretty."

By -
OK I am a tad jealous that Zetland's Forbes commentary gets a nod from MR and my misguided friends at Env-Econ. But check out Zetland's photo. Doesn't he know economists are supposed to look like tools? He looks more like a photo journalist back from the Serengeti.

I bet his female students write "LOVE YOU" on their eyelids a la Indiana Jones.

Comments

  1. Silas Barta10:40 AM

    LOL I thought I was the only one who noticed. I'd been thinking the same thing since going to his blog. When's he going to blog about his Don Juan tips?

    Btw, I never "got" that scene in Indiana Jones. He was fumbling around like a fool at the time. How is that supposed to be attractive?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy2:56 PM

    Are you imposing rational expectations on the student? (I.e. she must have written that before he was bumbling.)

    I would have to refresh my memory of the scene, but maybe she was trying to reassure him in his moment of frazzlement. Or maybe he was frazzled because she had been mentally undressing him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Silas Barta6:56 PM

    Well, I pirated it recently (j/k), so I have a good memory of the scene.

    I think you are generally right: in the past the female students decided Dr. Jones was hot, and so admire him even when he's bumbling and has a hard time spelling "neolithic". But why would I be an expert on female psychology?

    However, I think the main source of his bumblingness in that scene is because he's so broken over how Belloc stole the golden idol (that Indy stole from the Hovitos...) and that's all he can think about.

    You see this in how after the class leaves, all he can talk about is how he's going to find where Belloc will sell the idol, how he wants money to go to Marrakesh (hard to hear -- it sounds like he says "Americash"!) because he thinks that's the only place Belloc can do so.

    Obviously, the "LOVE YOU" girl only worsens his distraction.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:20 PM

    Having lived with David for four years, I can unequivocally say that he doesn't look like that in the morning before he's had his espresso.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more