Dr Gloria Moss is a former academic who went down the rabbit hole. The author of eight books including Why Men Like Straight Lines and Women Like Polka Dots, she has explored topics as diverse as Chretien de Troyes and the Holy Grail (her undergraduate degree was in French and Medieval Studies), the Dead Sea Scrolls site at Qumran, the real purpose of the Great Fire of London and the Gunpowder Plot. Unfortunately, for this first podcast with her, James didn’t get her onto any of these subjects because he was too interested in what she was telling him about her time working for blue chip industry on how to optimise productivity in the workplace. Next time, eh? You can find her at
https://www.truthuniversity.co.ukAlso, Gloria talks about how Robert Maxwell captured academic publishing and invented the corrupt process known as ‘peer review’.↓ ↓ ↓Monetary Metals is providing a true alternative to saving and earning in dollars by making it possible to save AND EARN in gold and silver.Monetary Metals has been paying interest on gold and silver for over 8 years.Right now, accredited investors can earn 12% annual interest on silver, paid in silver in their latest silver bond offering. For example, if you have 1,000 ounces of silver in the deal, you receive 120 ounces of silver interest paid to your account in the first year.Go to the link in the description or head to https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/ to learn more about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with Monetary Metals.↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children’s future.
In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, JD tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming’.This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original’s sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists’ sinister master plan.Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/↓ ↓ ↓
Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk
x
Welcome to the Dellingpole with me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say, I'm excited about this big special guest.
But before we meet her, let's have a word from one of our sponsors.
Gold and silver.
They've been going like rockets recently, especially gold.
I think silver will follow.
But I'm no expert.
What do I know?
I just know that I've got some gold and I've got some silver and I'm very happy to have some.
There are two ways of owning it.
Either you can buy physical gold in the form of gold and silver bullion or in the form of coins, or you can take the monetary metals option.
Monetary metals is a company.
I've had the CEO Keith Weiner on the podcast twice to explain how it all works.
It's a way of owning physical gold and silver, but you get paid interest on your holding.
Now, this is different.
When you hold gold in a vault, you have to pay a fee, a management fee.
But if you buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you get paid interest.
So you don't have to pay storage charges.
You're actually earning income on your gold, which is paid in the form of more gold and silver.
It sounds like it doesn't make any sense, but actually it works because the jewelry industry pays money to monetary metals which enables it to pay you interest on your gold.
It does work.
So if you want to buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you go to monetary metals, monetary-metals.com forward slash dellingpole.
You can find out more about it.
Monetary-metals.com forward slash dellingpole.
You can earn up to 4% in their leasing program immediately after funding your account.
You can even earn higher yields if you are an accredited investor via their bond offerings.
They let you earn income on their ounces paid in more ounces of physical gold.
The interest you earn is paid in ounces of physical gold or silver, which you get in addition to any price at appreciation from gold and silver during the year.
Join thousands of investors earning interest in physical gold and silver every month with monetary metals.
Visit monetary-metals.com forward slash dellingpole to earn more.
Welcome to the Dellingpod, Gloria Moss.
I met you ages back and we said we were going to do a podcast and we never did.
Totally my fault.
I just didn't.
I can be quite flaky that way.
And then our mutual friend, Clive DeKale, said, you should do a podcast with Gloria.
She's great.
And this reminded me.
So, first of all, tell us about yourself.
I mean, tell me what you remind me of.
You remind me of a beloved English teacher at somewhere like St. Paul's School for Girls.
You're obviously not that, but that's...
No, no, I couldn't be further from that.
Yeah.
Well, tell me about myself.
I'm a bit of a hybrid creature, and I'm very proud to be a hybrid.
Not what?
Bred in Underground Military Bases.
Very proud to be a hybrid creature because in career terms, I spent a lot of my life working in industry as a training and development person.
And my job was really to try and turn an unhealthy organization into an unhealthy one, which is quite a challenge, but a very exciting challenge, and develop people's potential within the organization.
I have a background in human resources, and that's how I found myself in that position.
Having, after a first degree and a master's, first degree in French, master's in medieval studies, because I loved medieval French, I then decided that I needed to get real.
And so I went off to the London School of Economics and qualified in human resources.
And from there, I found myself going down the route of training and development because that appealed to me most, developing people's potential in industry.
And I had a job on Britain's biggest manufacturing site up in Derby.
I was in charge of training.
You had to jump in a car to go from one end of this chemical site to the other.
And it was such an exciting experience working for this very, very big company, a bit like ICI.
It was called Courtolds.
I've heard of that.
So I was the site training manager on UK's biggest manufacturing site.
And I was organising training programmes for everybody from the blue-collar workers, as they were called.
And I'm very proud to have introduced the first ever qualification, NVQ qualification, for blue-collar chemical workers.
And I've always believed that if you have a foot on the learning ladder, you're launched, really.
You just need that foot on the learning ladder.
And I also introduced training programs for supervisors, managers, graduates, apprentices.
It was a very exciting period.
And then I was head-hunted into a job that couldn't have been more difficult, different.
And that was with the precursor to Eurostar, which is modern day Eurotunnel.
Sorry, sorry, I said that again.
It was Eurotunnel, precursor to modern day Eurostar.
And I was asked to be the UK training manager because I suppose I had skills in understanding how organisations work or don't work, as the case may be.
And I'm fluent in French and English.
And Eurotunnel, Eurostar, is a binational company, largely staffed by English and French people.
So I worked on the Channel Tunnel project for several years, organising the management training programme.
Well, my brief, James, was to create a common way of managing across the French and British populations working in the company.
And these two countries have been at war, France and Britain, for much of their history.
It wasn't going to be me that could solve the differences, which are absolutely immense.
I mean, I thought I knew a lot about the French for my first degree.
I've read more French books, literature than I've ever read English literature.
But it was only when I worked shoulder to shoulder every day with French people and learned quite a lot about cross-cultural Studies that has mapped the differences in how we think.
It's so interesting when we get to the level of differences in how different nationalities think.
It was only then that I could really understand what was happening and why, for example, the French HR director was saying to me, Your problem, Gloria, is that you're too interested in getting things done.
Problem?
He said, you have to understand that we French are far more interested in process and absolutely what I observed.
But maybe that could be a subject for another day.
No, that's interesting.
It sounds like a bad thing, being interested in process.
I would say so.
I mean, my memory of those times was that the French were very engaged in le planification.
So there were endless charts being drawn up by the French contingent, many of whom had been to the Grand Décole, the very elite institutions in France, the B's and E's, if you like.
But it was all about le planification and less about the doing.
And I'm quite keen on getting things done, I have to say.
And, well, yeah, I introduced a language training program that managed to provide a ladder whereby people could move from beginners level in French to advance level with examinations to map people's progress in just nine weeks.
And that's better than any other language school around at the time.
And the secret to success, and this was tried and tested, is to take people off the job and do immersive training.
So that's what I did.
I stopped all the drip feed training that was going on, which wasn't going anywhere.
You know, one hour a week gives you time to forget it by the time the next lesson comes around the next week.
So, but with immersive training, you take somebody off the job and they devote a whole week at a time to learning, in this case, the language, and the learning curve suddenly shoots up.
So, anyway, I'm saying I'm a bit of a hybrid because that's very much part of my background, trying to fix problems in a human sense.
And then I decided to move from there into the academic world in order to engage in some research.
So, I combine these two experiences, shall we say, experiences of industry and experience of academia.
And in academia, I worked hard.
I started at the bottom as a research assistant and I worked my way up through the ranks, senior lecturer, reader, up to professor, along the way writing a large number of books, something like eight books, 80 peer-reviewed journal articles.
And, well, I wasn't going to be an ivory tower academic.
Why should I?
I like to get things done.
I like things to change.
And so I was writing quite regularly for the media, for the mainstream media, in order to share what I was finding from my research with the mainstream.
So I've written about 200 articles for the mainstream media, whether the national dailies or should we call them trade magazines?
That would be human resources or marketing magazines because I was a professor of marketing and management.
So that's me.
I'm a bit of a hybrid.
A professor of marketing and management.
Where were you?
What university?
I've been to several.
both in France and in Britain.
So in Britain I've worked, just to name a few, the Open University, I used to work there even when I was in industry as what they call a tutor running weekend workshops.
That was great fun working alongside people from industry who were studying perhaps for an MBA.
So I'd be their tutor for the weekend, taking them through.
It was mainly management that I was focused on.
You know, organizational psychology, leadership, these kind of topics were all important in the real world.
And there is so much poor leadership.
So it's very good when people, mature students, come on these courses to learn, to improve their skills.
I'll bet.
So when people are what did you find the greatest deficiency was in the people in the workers that you were trying to train up to be better?
Are we talking about the managers?
Yeah, tell me about the management.
The management, yeah.
Oh, well, I'll try and keep this short.
Essentially, if you like, there are two or should we say three main styles of leadership.
I'm not going to make, don't worry, it's not going to be too technical.
There's top-down men in grey suits.
Forgive me talking about men, but it's often the men who are at the top, isn't it?
And so you've got this authoritarian style, which in the trade is referred to as transactional leadership.
And that works on the basis of we're going to ignore you most of the time, but if you do something wrong, then you'll know it.
We're going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.
But, you know, do something fantastic.
We're going to ignore you.
We're not going to support you.
We'll reward you.
We'll monitor you.
But we'll have a laissez-faire style of management.
This is transactional leadership, according to an American called Bernard Bass.
Contrast that, and Bernard Bass mapped this as well, with transformational leadership.
This takes you into a whole new world.
A world where some of the competencies involve, for example, individualized consideration.
How is your weekend, James?
How is your family?
It's a completely different style of leadership.
Inspirational motivation is another aspect of transformational leadership.
And why is management lacking, shall we say?
I would say in a nutshell, it's because there is an excess of transactional leadership.
Yes, but the other type sounds a bit too hands-on.
I remember from my days as a grunt, when I started out in the media on the Telegraph, I think I would have been perfectly happy for them not to be asking how my weekend went.
I wanted to be as low a profile as possible, get promoted.
Actually, do you know what?
They shoved me in the newsroom.
I didn't want to be in the newsroom at all.
I was not suited to it.
I was the arts correspondent.
I hated the job.
It was completely pointless.
And I think all I wanted from the management was to realize that I was entirely unsuited to being in the newsroom and I should have been writing feature articles.
But you see, they didn't take the trouble to find out about you.
And had they taken the trouble, they might not have shoved you in the newsroom.
This is the point.
So the transformational leadership looks at the person in the round.
Right.
And you might have saved yourself.
How long were you in the newsroom?
Not that long, but too long.
I mean, I think they probably thought that it was the sort of thing that one had to do.
Like even when you become a senior policeman, they want you to do your time on the beat.
Well, they probably don't anymore at all, but you probably get fast-tracked from your uni with your worthless degree in sociology, and then you become chief constable.
But you know what I mean.
Absolutely.
And so, and there is a third style of leadership, which I am very proud to have done the first really pucker research on, which is called inclusive leadership.
I've written a book on that subject, inclusive leadership, in 2019.
And this combines transformational leadership, which I briefly touched on, with another form of leadership, which was talked about by a man called Greenleaf in the 1970s.
You may have heard of it.
It's called servant leadership.
And they often refer to the inverted triangle.
So instead of having the usual triangle for an organization structure with the apex, the pointed end at the top, you have an inverted triangle.
And the idea is that the leader in servant leadership is there to serve everybody else in the company rather than presenting themselves as top dog.
It's a way of inverting in a very positive sense the normal organization chart.
So this was Greenleaf's inclusive, sorry, servant leadership.
And what I did was test the effects of combining in leadership style transformational with this servant leadership.
And I can tell you, after four years of work with my team, which included a chartered psychologist, that the effects are extraordinary.
If every organization had the 15 competences that I was testing full from the transformational and the balance from servant leadership, then the world would be transformed overnight.
And I'm not exaggerating.
One of the 15 competences from servant leadership, for example, is empathy.
This is one of the things sorely lacking.
Another is building people's confidence instead of knocking it.
Another competence is listening and listening in a very active sense so that you actually act on what you're hearing.
You don't just say yes, yes, yes, and go away and do nothing.
These are just three of the 15.
And in the book I wrote for Routledge on inclusive leadership, this isn't theoretical.
I wrote case studies about some of the wonderful organizations, all as it happened based in Britain, that were practising this style of leadership.
They included this sales division of Royal Mail, for example.
That's the biggest sales outfit in Britain because it has the Amazon contract.
And at the time I was mapping what they were doing, they were run by an extremely enlightened man who realized that the profitability of Royal Mail sales could go leaps and bounds if he adopted this style.
So he was ushered into a big office when he was promoted with a big desk, big chair, all the paraphernalia of being head of sales at Royal Mail.
He said, no, thank you.
I don't want that room.
I want to work alongside the rest of the sales team.
And sales went through the roof.
The whole style of interactions between people changed.
So that was one organization.
Another one was Seven Oaks School, which won the Sunday Times School of Independent School of the Year award on two occasions.
And I went into the school and very privileged I was to be allowed to conduct a new study there looking at the effect of different styles of maths teaching on students perceptions.
And what we found was that both in industry, and I conducted a very big survey with just under a thousand people from organizations spanning the public and private sectors,
was that there was a correlation of 0.87 between staff perceiving their leaders as inclusive with these wonderful trays from transactional and servant leadership and perceiving themselves as having enhanced mental well-being, motivation and high productivity.
In other words, when staff are managed by people who exemplify these trays of transformational and servant leadership, there's no limit to what they'll do.
I mean, in fact, if people want to be exploitative of their workers, they're rather silly to use authoritarian styles of leadership because people switch off.
You know, we're not stupid.
But people will go the extra mile when they're treated nicely.
That's interesting.
And those results were mirrored in the studies I did in Seven Oaks School and also in a university.
Almost exactly the same correlations.
And yet, managers persist in doing this authoritarian thing, which is counterproductive.
Right.
Well, I was thinking, you know who probably pioneered servant leadership?
No, who?
Well, you think about the moment where Jesus washes his disciples' feet.
I mean, you can't get much more servant leadership than that.
No, and he did seem to make a bit of an impact in history.
He did.
He was his company's share price just rose massively.
I mean, even more than NVIDIA, but actually, actually with some solid basis, unlike NVIDIA.
Yeah, that's really interesting.
I'm glad I asked you those questions because I think some of the stuff that you've discovered since on your journey is so wacky and out there that coming from somebody with your experience and bottom and sort of gentle authority, it's all the more interesting.
So when did you realize that something was amiss in the world and that things are not as we have been brought up to believe?
Ah, what an interesting question.
From, I would say, from about 30 years ago.
It goes back about 30 years.
Yeah.
So, yeah, not quite right, really.
And some of that realization came after I'd moved from industry into academia and realizing that so much of what we're told just isn't correct.
Once you start digging just a little bit, you just scrape the surface and suddenly a whole new reality opens up for you.
And so when I moved from the world of industry into the world of academia, it was to actually undertake a particular bit of research.
And that was into, my goodness, it's a little while ago when I think back to those days when I started on that journey.
Looking at the designs, I was looking at the designs that men and women create and prefer.
And I was asking myself, do men and women actually have different, completely different notions of what good design is?
And I've published a lot, several books, several articles on this subject.
The bottom-line finding, really, is that men and women, this is just what I've discovered, there are of course exceptions, but by and large, they operate very different success criteria, if we can put it that way.
Right.
Both in the designs that they create and also in terms of the designs that they prefer.
Example, let's say you're designing a chocolate box, a luxury chocolate box.
What would that look like?
What would the most excellent example of that look like?
And well, I tested this out with groups of male and female students only to discover that the chocolate boxes of the male students look completely different from the chocolate boxes of the female students.
And then I ran some experiments and found that the differences in the features of the male and the female designs were poles apart, statistically speaking.
You know, the females would use more colour, the males would use more straight lines, the females would use more detail, and and so I mapped this, you know, from a statistical perspective.
And then that was stage one, establishing that the aesthetic, the male and female aesthetic is not identical when it comes to creations.
And then the 64 000 question was, what about preferences?
How would a male react to a female design that was prototypically female, and how might a female react to a male design that's prototypically male, if you follow what i'm saying?
And what would the implications be for the world of of consumer behavior shopping, purchasing?
There was a lot vested in this question.
And so I found answers to this question.
And the answers showed, essentially, that this may sound terribly politically incorrect.
Well, I do hope so.
Yes, it is.
But actually, you know, males prefer the designs that males create and females prefer.
the designs that females create.
And remember I said that first stage of this research was comparing what they create.
Very different.
Yeah, you know, the male chocolate box might be hexagonal in shape, for example, where the female chocolate box I was finding would be produced by a female designer in an oval shape or a round shape, poles apart.
And so the preference um section at the stage of this research showed that very definitely the statistics were off the wall, James.
Males prefer designs created by males and females prefer designs created by females.
Because they're different.
The female chocolate boxes were round, very detailed, lots of curvy lines.
The male chocolate boxes created by the males were couldn't be more different, octagonal rectangular square, you name it with very little detail, poles apart.
So here are these preference test findings showing that males by and large prefer prefer products that are typical of the male aesthetic, if I can call it that, and females prefer products that are typical of the female aesthetic.
I did a big study on web design, for example.
That was a very big one.
I did it with the help of a wonderful academic, dr Rod Gun couldn't have done that work without him because he's a brilliant statistician.
We did that work in partnership For quite a while.
They published a lot.
Essentially, most websites that you see today are very masculine.
If you think about them, very square, very little detail.
That's very typical, we found, of male-created websites.
The female-created websites, you'd probably drop off your chair if you saw what they look like.
They're so chock-a-block full of detail and colour and no straight lines in sight.
We very rarely see those female-created websites.
And just to cut a long story short, none of this makes sense from a commercial perspective because essentially we live in a world of commerce, retail, where the male aesthetic prevails.
And yet, 83% of all purchases are made by, guess who?
Females.
Yes.
So you have this essential mismatch.
And the room for improvement, for additional productivity, is absolutely immense.
And, well, that was a whole other story.
Knocking on doors of companies with this good news story that you could make more money if you can shift your aesthetic from the male end to the female.
If you're working in a sector like beauty, for example, where over 90% of the purchases are made by women.
I mean, if you're selling petrol, you can stick with what you've got because most of the purchases are men.
But, you know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
So you really want to display to your purchaser the vision that will give them most delight.
But actually, the world we live in, you know, most heads of marketing, most heads of companies are males.
I have nothing against males, I like males, but they tend to see the world through their pair of eyes and assume that that is how the rest of the world, you know, the female end of the world sees it as well.
But they don't.
This is what I found through my 20 years, 20-year-plus years of research on this topic.
And fascinating period.
Not the easiest, I must say, period of research because I was doing this research at a time when much of the world was telling us that, well, you can just swap your gender if you want.
You know, you can be born male, but you can choose to be a female.
So what I was saying, I was probably one of only two researchers, possibly three, in Britain, who was talking about innate sex difference.
And it's so robust when it comes to the visual, because differences in visuospatial abilities are amongst the most robust of all the cognitive sex differences.
Give you one, just one couple of ideas about that.
Men's eyes are spaced on average five millimeters further apart than women, women's eyes.
That gives them better stereoscopic vision.
A proportion of women, some people put it at 50%, have a fourth colour pigment over men's three colour pigments.
That gives them access to hundreds of millions of colours as against men's millions of colours.
This is fact.
So how can you change all of this?
I was asking myself.
I don't think you can.
And so I was probably one of only two, at most three.
Professor Aaron Cohen at Cambridge wrote a book on called The Essential Sex Difference, arguing for these, not just the ones I'm talking about, but other essential sex differences.
He said he waited many years before writing that book because the climate he didn't think was particularly propitious.
Well, indeed, it wasn't.
And, you know, we're being told you can change your gender willy-nilly.
Well, I would seriously question that.
But we're getting into muddy waters there, so we might...
Well, no, I quite like muddy waters.
I mean, not to swim in, because that's when bull sharks attack you.
They like attacking in muddy waters.
I don't want to be attacked by a bull shark.
But on a podcast, it's more interesting and necessary.
Because I asked you what it was that made you realise that the world is not as it seemed.
And actually, you've mentioned something I wasn't expecting because it's so obvious and so true.
And yet at the same time, we've all been trained to be in denial of it.
Even people like me, or people like you, you're rigorous and discerning, but there's been so much social pressure to think, yeah, women, men, they're all the same, really.
When we know from the moment we're born pretty much, I mean, I've watched very young babies, my own children, and watching, for example, a female baby see a male face and start sort of flirting with the man and trying to exert its wiles, its female wiles upon him.
We know from the off that men and women are fundamentally different and we behave accordingly.
And yet we inhabit a culture which is trying to force us into this state of, well, indeed, has induced a state of cognitive dissonance where something we know to be true, observably true, we are yet encouraged to be in denial of.
That's so beautifully expressed, if I may say so.
And Professor Baron Cohen, I was very keen to meet him because it's, I must say, this 20 years of research was not the easiest of rides.
It rather feels as though you're swimming in a shark-infested sea when the rest of the world is telling you no, there aren't any innate essential biological sex differences.
So I did have a conversation with him and he was very reassuring to have that conversation.
And well, he and his team at Cambridge University had discovered, well, they were looking at the way that one day old babies fixated.
Global warming is a massive con.
There is no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem, that it's going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
It's a non-existent problem.
How do you explain this stuff to your normie friends?
Well, I've just brought out the revised edition of my 2012 classic book, Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in 2011 actually, the first edition came out.
And it's a snapshot of a particular era, the era when the people behind the climate change scam got caught red-handed, tinkering with the data, torturing till it screamed in a scandal that I helped christen ClimateGate.
So I give you the background to the skullduggery that went on in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us, we've got to act now.
I rumbled their scam.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scam, who's doing this and why?
It's a good story.
I've kept the original book pretty much as is, but I've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it still stands out.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find that way.
Just go to my website and look for it, jamesdellingpole.co.uk.
And I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring around all those people who are still persuaded that, oh, it's a disaster.
We must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother Gaia.
There we go.
It's a scam.
And he, it was very reassuring to have that conversation.
And, well, he and his team at Cambridge University had discovered, well, they were looking at the way that one day old babies fixated.
They've been one day in the world.
And his team noted differences in the way that the boy and the girl babies fixated.
And what his team discovered was that the boy babies fixated more on things than they did on people.
And the girl babies, one day old, fixated more on people than on things.
And so I said to him, well, surely you've got that evidence, that research evidence.
Surely this must be the argument to end all dispute about the biological basis for at least some sex difference.
I'm not disputing that society doesn't have an effect.
And what he then said, at least as best as I recall, was that the sociological lobby would then come in and argue for influences on the womb affecting those reactions.
And, well, you know, and then of course he talked about the opposition that he'd confronted when he came up when his team produced these results about the fixations of one and two day old babies.
So when you undertake research in this area, Let's say the word simple doesn't come to mind because you're dealing with complexities, not just in terms of how you conduct the research and making sure your methodology is good, but complexities also in terms of how it's going to be received.
And I'm personally quite proud of the fact that I managed to get promoted up the ladder in the academic world, even with such a problematic subjects as this.
So, you know, I worked my way up to professor by virtue of publications and a degree of reputation.
And then when the going got too difficult on this topic, which it did, I mean, the chances of getting research funding, which you need to get as a professor for research on gender difference, well, forget it.
You know, there'd be lots of money for research arguing the other way, but not for that.
So I then shifted my focus to research on leadership, which has always been a big interest of mine.
And it's so important.
We talked about that earlier.
Transformational, transactional.
So I then spent, I got some grant funding to do some fascinating research on best practice leadership.
And I suppose the challenge, the problem or challenge, depending on which way you look at it, is that research findings aren't always welcome.
shall we say.
And what I've concluded on leadership is that actually it is a combination of servant leadership and transformational leadership that will really boost productivity and people's motivation and mental well-being.
That isn't a conclusion that's welcome in many circles.
Because industry currently, the style of leadership that's ubiquitous is not that style of leadership.
The style of leadership that's ubiquitous is the top-down authoritarian transactional style.
And there's an irony, of course, because that's keeping a lid on everything.
And maybe there are vested interests that would like to keep a lid on everything rather than put in place, I mean, there are exceptions, there are some wonderful British organisations, exceptions perhaps, who do have this combination of servant leadership and transformational, but they are the exception.
If that were widespread, I really, hand on heart, we'd be living in a different world.
But certainly the university system doesn't operate with that kind of leadership.
University leadership, by and large, is extremely traditional, top-down, hierarchical leadership.
Well, I was thinking, as you were telling me all this, that one of the lies we're taught about the world and you can see why so many people are seduced by it, and I believe this for most of my life is that with business, it's all about.
It's all about the money, it's all about the profit.
The business is such a sort of no-nonsense entity that it's not.
It hasn't got time for idiocies like, oh, men and women are exactly the same, or what business wants is whatever works best, and I think you would probably agree with me that this isn't actually the case.
It's a nice caricature which, which fits in one's, one's sort of image of capitalism as being kind of ruthless but also kind of cool because it, because it's got.
No, it's not motivated by sentiment.
But actually you've just given me two examples that show that this is not the case.
The one you had, this research about male and female tastes, which could have been really useful to a lot of industries, and they, they pretty much ignored you.
And the other example you gave me is of CEOs being reluctant to introduce methods, that of leadership, which could actually massively increase the bottom line and therefore justify their, their bonuses and all the things that, all the things that rapacious capitalism is supposed to care about most?
And would I be right in thinking that from this you have inferred that actually this idea that business is there to kind of generate maximum value is yet another lie, we're told?
And actually it's run by?
Well, we know about CEOs being psychopaths a lot, particularly the bigger companies like Unilever, etc.
They are run by psychopaths and psychopaths furthermore, who have been, who have gone through the the selection process of proving their allegiance to the forces of darkness for want of a better phrase that that that business, like everything else, is primarily designed to screw us over.
It's not designed to to generate value.
Well.
Why they behave in the way they do is open to question, and you know we could talk about that for a long time.
Um, is it because they're psychopaths or sociopaths, or is it because of their personality type?
Personality is such an interesting issue.
I mean, one of the books I've written is entitled Gender, Design and Marketing and another book is entitled Personality, Design and Marketing.
The issue of personality type is, I would say, overlooked, very widely overlooked, to the detriment of society, really, because there's such a range of personality types that respond so differently to simile and experiences.
Is this the Myers-Briggs thing?
Oh, you know about that.
Well, I do, and I love looking at it to try and work out which one I am.
I can't remember whether I'm going to ent something or other.
I don't know.
But you'd be definitely N, i.e., for those listening who don't know this, it is such a wonderful thing based on Jung's personality types.
I happen to be a trained user of this test because I think it's such a wonderful test.
reveals so much.
It basically measures four pairs of opposites.
Introversion, extroversion is one.
Whether somebody too is what they call sensing or intuitive, which forget these words, they're very misleading.
Whether you're basically living within the world delivered by your five senses, that's the sensing type, or whether you see a world beyond the five senses, which is the so-called intuitive type.
It's a very misleading term.
And then there's the thinking, feeling type, so-called.
Very misleading again.
The thinking type will tend to make decisions on the basis purely of logic, whereas the feeling type will tend to use both logic and feelings in making decisions.
And then the final type, I wonder which one of these you are, James.
It's the JP.
It's whether you make decisions quickly with limited data or whether you ponder and you say on the one hand, on the other, give me another 10 minutes, two hours until I really get to the bottom of this problem.
Now, most of the people working in industry are not that second type.
You might have guessed that.
They are the judgment type who make decisions in a very peremptory way.
And that may be a factor in why things aren't changing in industry.
Because there's this preponderance of the judgment type, so-called, using Jule's term, that makes decisions in a very peremptory manner.
They don't favour the other type, which I have to confess to being the so-called perception P-type.
They always give you, you take the letter from the word, which likes to mull things over on the one hand or the other.
If there were more P types in industry, you might get better decision making because it'd be less peremptory.
And if we had more feeling types and less thinking types, feeling types are an endangered species in industry.
I mean, one of the beauties of the Myers-Briggs type inventory is that it's the most widely used personality instrument in the world.
So there's a mass of data and you can explore that data, segment it by industry, by country.
It's absolutely fascinating.
When you segment it by industry, you find that, for example, the so-called feeling type don't they're not touchy-feely people necessarily.
They're people who combine the ability to think logically with the ability to think emotionally.
They're they're an endangered species in industry and one of the reasons I left industry, where part of my work involved organizing management, training and trying to change the behaviors of managers, whilst realizing that most managers were actually the thinking type and didn't have the feeling bit as part of their person.
If you follow my gist and that actually, rather than trying to change a thinking type person, would it not be better to change your recruitment policy?
In other words, rather than treat this as a training problem, or we must give these thinking type managers more training, should this not rather be addressed as a recruitment problem, and should we not expand our recruitment to accommodate more of these feeling types who embrace logical thinking and also feeling?
I don't know if you follow what I'm saying here.
Well I do I was gonna what I was gonna ask you about that was all those sort of self-help books you buy at airport departure lounges in the in the business section particularly are they basically in the business of trying to make people into things that they are not oh that's a fascinating question
Yeah, I mean, I suppose in a sense they you, they may be doing that, because why should there be a one fit, one size fit all solution for every type of person, I mean, or human being?
I should say I'm very conscious that we shouldn't use that word person, because it applies to a legal fiction.
But yeah yes, capital letters yes, all of this.
You know, there's a multitude of personality types, and this is one of the insights that this MBTI test, Myers-Briggs type inventory, has brought us, that there is such a myriad of personality types, and no two types will see the world in an identical way.
And the type currently employed predominantly in...
in industry is a particular type.
It is the most common type, but you know hey, it's time for a change.
I think you know there are, there are 16 personality types, and industry tends to recruit from maybe two or three of those 16 types.
And so, no wonder you, you know, when you talk about them stuck in a particular way of seeing the world, a groove, it could be because they're psychopathic or or or sociopathic, or whatever it is, but it could be because they have a, A particular personality type that predisposes them to think in a particular way.
Change the personality, change the person at the top, recruit somebody with a different personality.
You know, organizations, I know quite a lot about this.
I happen to be a fellow of the Charter's Institute of Personnel and Development.
Change the person at the top, and you will very likely change the rest of the organization.
Because people recruit in their own image.
So imagine we have the kind of, if I can use a cliché, men in grey suits at the top of organizations at the moment, they will tend to recruit others.
It could be women in grey suits, but there'll be women in grey suits rather than the women in polka dots, polka dot jackets.
I'm using clichés here, just to try and make the point.
Change the person at the top, and the world could change overnight.
Yes, but that presupposes that people who run the world want it to change.
Which they really don't.
They really don't.
No.
No, they really don't.
But they could be vastly more profitable were they to change the person at the top.
And are they interested in being profitable?
Were they interested in being profitable?
Then actually persisting in having these transactional leaders at the top, people who ignore you until things go wrong, ignore all the wonderful work you're doing, don't give any encouragement.
You know, that will always diminish profitability, having those kind of people at the top.
So if they're interested at all in money and making more money, then, well, you might have said it's enlightened self-interest to change the way they work.
Yes.
Yes.
But this takes me back to my days when I used to do a podcast with my old university friend Toby Young.
Now Lord Young.
And the podcast was called London Calling.
And there was a phase towards the end as the marriage, as mummy and daddy realised that there were irreconcilable differences in their political outlook, whereas before they'd both considered themselves to be conservatives.
And then one of them, i.e. me, I don't know whether I'm mummy or daddy in this.
I realized that the world was run according to principles completely different from the ones I'd imagined.
And whereas before I used to go along with the conventional narrative that people are motivated in business by self-interest, which I still agree with, but that they want to make profit and they want the so-called capitalist system to work.
They want that they understand that capitalism is basically a good thing and free markets are good and that profit is good and that to a degree greed is good.
And we're sold all these lies and I realize that they're just not true.
And when you're trying to explain to somebody like Toby, who is wedded to the old paradigm, because he's been brainwashed like most people, when you're trying to explain to him that people, the people who run the world already have so much money that they don't give a toss if the so-called capitalist system collapses.
They've never believed in free markets.
The entire system, economic system, is wigged and always has been.
Unless you can get past that, you will never understand how the world really works.
The world is run by psychopathic Satanists whose agenda is completely different from any normal person.
Most of us just want to be left alone, possibly to have an improved lifestyle and a better lifestyle for our children and so on.
Simple things.
But the people who are in charge don't think like that.
So they're never sitting down thinking, oh, how can I make my business better?
How can I make it function so that I can generate more value for my shareholders and get a nicer bonus for myself?
They're beyond that.
They quite like to boast of high profits.
At the lower tier level.
I'm not sure.
Yeah, maybe the average CEO, but the CEOs are just tools of the elites.
They're not really at the top table.
No.
No.
So, the key, I suppose, from what you're saying is how we make life successful outside of their system.
Yeah.
And that's the interesting journey that confronts one when one is no longer working within that system.
It is how to make life work outside of the system that they have created, which, you know, from what you're saying, is by definition dysfunctional.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it's not given to many people to be able to escape that.
I look at my children's generation, for example, and the net is closing in, the people who run the world, which we're going to have to talk about in a separate podcast because we haven't got space in this one.
I was thinking we were going to branch out into the Great Fire of London, Tartaria.
Oh, yes, that would be wonderful.
The real reason behind the plagues.
But this is going to have to be our introductory episode where people get to meet Gloria and are charmed by her and realise that she's got considered views, let's say.
You're not just another nutcase like me that's leapt into the abyss.
I don't know what personality type that would make me, but yeah.
Jump first, ask questions later.
Well, you know, the minority personality types are considered maverick because they're not majority by definition.
That doesn't make one a maverick.
So, you know, if you're different, so much the better, really.
Well I call that being weird, certainly.
It's done me well.
I mean it's.
Do you know about the concept of I've mentioned this before on the other podcasts, the concept of the weird sheep?
No I don't.
So James Reebanks, who's written books, he's a sheep farmer in the north, possibly in Cumbria, I think.
And he says, I probably get this slightly wrong, but you get the general joke, that every flock of sheep has a weird sheep in it.
And the weird sheep does stuff that the other sheep aren't doing.
So when the other sheep are sort of gravitating, as they do at different times of the day, to a particular part of the field, maybe because it's warmer or maybe because it's more sheltered or whatever, just because they're sheep and one's doing it, so they're all doing it.
The weird sheep will always be doing something, often be doing something different.
And the weird sheep most of the time is anomalous and sort of not really relevant to the rest of the herd, the flock.
But there will come occasions like when there's a snowstorm and the sheep are in some kind of, put in some kind of peril.
And the weird sheep will be the pioneering sheep that works out the behaviour that is going to save the flock from the danger that they would otherwise be in.
I can't imagine what the example is.
The example, I think, was something to do with snow and not covering up the walls or something or the doorways or whatever.
But anyway, the weird sheep gets you out of the mess that your sort of flock mentality has got you into.
Anyway, so I'm a weird sheep.
Maybe you are.
you must be you must be Gloria because you have people have this has been a sort of slow burn podcast People have been sort of getting to know you.
But a lot of my listeners will be going, yeah, but love her.
Love what she's saying, but how does this press my conspiracy theory buttons?
Where's the crazy stuff?
And that's what we were sort of discovering gently when I asked you what it was that suggested to you that the world is not quite as so you had that experience.
You saw the whole of academe, which is supposed to be like clever, right?
Academe is supposed to be part of our sort of intellectual training.
And this whole institution, all these universities, were all saying the same thing, pretty much.
That no, men and women are actually the same.
And if you don't say, if you argue otherwise, you're not going to get your funding and you're not going to get promotion.
Oh, well, absolutely.
I was fighting a rearguard action against that for about over 20 years.
And that was really the reason I went into academia, to pursue that research, because somebody has to think logically and clearly in the midst of this zeitgeist that's proclaiming otherwise.
So one likes to think, I mean, that's not true, but one would like to think that academics would be interested in ideas and discussing theories and making arguments.
But so what happened when you presented your your case to your colleagues, to people at conferences, I don't know, whatever.
Did they not?
How do they respond?
Well that's a really interesting question.
I remember the first, I was pretty wet behind the ears to start with.
I thought, gosh, everybody would be so interested in my findings.
You know, I was finding that when I organized preference tests and I would ask men and women to say which of several designs created by males and females they preferred, I found that men unconsciously gravitated to the male designs, male created.
These could be chocolate box designs, and the females would gravitate to those chocolate box designs designed by the women.
You know, the extent to which people were preferring the designs of their own sex was statistically off the wall.
It was so strong.
So I was naive.
I thought, well, everybody will be fascinated with this finding, I thought to myself.
So off I went to the first conference I could find and it was a conference of sociologists.
And there I was, a bit wet behind the ears, presenting these findings, which I thought were terribly exciting.
And then in the break, I couldn't help but hear people say things like, who allowed her here?
Referring to me, you know, who invited her to this meeting.
And I have to say that I had noticed that the questions were of a very hostile nature, I must say.
Yes, because I'm talking about the subject of sex, you know, biological sex is what I'm referring to.
And sociologists as a group are, as best I understand it, very different from the psychologists.
They're not terribly engaged with this notion of biological sex.
They're more, you know, they have different concepts.
So how did people respond?
Well, that was as close as they could get to throwing mud, really.
And it was a very, very difficult journey.
And I'm used to challenges, but I have to say that that 20-year journey, pursuing this research, writing books, getting the findings down in peer-reviewed journals, that's not easy, was a battle and a half in the environment in which we live.
And I have to say, I pat myself on the shoulder for having got through, emerged from that and become a professor with such challenging research.
But somebody has to do it, James.
That was always my view.
And I don't mind being the monk who does it, because we need to have the information, we need the knowledge.
And I've recorded it now in this book, for example.
I don't know if you can see this.
Gender design and marketing.
That's a very detailed book charting the differences in males, female visual perceptions.
And I wrote a popular book with completely different material with a very nice title called Why Men Like Straight Lines and Women Like Polka Dots.
Nice.
Men like straight lines, women like polka dots.
So why not write a book?
Well, yes, it has so, but I want to revive it actually, because I think now we're in territory which is more amenable to listening to this information.
Ever since we had the ruling, when was it?
April last year from the Supreme Court.
Was it this year?
Gosh, my mind's all in a whirl, I think, when we're more at liberty now to talk about innate sex difference.
And so I'm going to I'm in discussion with the publisher at the moment to see you know whether you know how we can boost, boost that particular publication.
If anybody's interested in it, I can, well, you can get it from the publisher, Psyche Press, Why Men Like Straight Lines, Women Like Polka Dots, or write to me.
Am I allowed to give an email?
Of course you are.
You can plug whatever you want to.
The email, well, I've set up something called Truth University because we need that.
Don't we need that?
So if you write to info TruthUniversity at protonmail.com, that's info TruthUniversity at ProtonMail.com, then I can arrange to get a copy of Why Men Like Straight Lines and Women Like Polka Dots too.
And it's a good read, but packed full with important information.
Thanks.
Before we go, because I know you've got a few bits.
Have you got time for five minutes more?
I was looking at your I love your list of topics I mean, we're going to have to talk about another one, another podcast, about how the fire of London was used as a way of disguising these old Tartarian buildings, is that right?
Yeah, that's a good one.
I haven't done it.
I'm not convinced by it, but I think there's something going on.
Well, I mean, that fire isn't as it seems, don't we?
We're looking at that because we haven't got space for that one.
No, no, no.
But if I just say, history has told us that some pretty amazing buildings were erected within the span of two to three years after the Great Fire of London.
It's sheerly impossible to do that.
Right.
That's a good appetite wetter for the next episode we're going to do together.
But one thing that jumped out at me was, and this is kind of relevant to your experiences in academe, is that I didn't know that the concept of peer review, which as you can probably explain in more detail, is a deeply corrupt process, was invented by Robert Maxwell.
Absolutely it was.
Absolutely it was.
Yes.
So tell us about this.
When did he invent?
I know that Maxwell controlled Pergamon publishing, which is one of the he ended up sort of cornering the market in scientific academic publication, didn't he?
Absolutely.
That was created in the 1950s.
And it's very interesting that he set up Pergamon Press.
I think it cost him, he bought two existing publishing companies and then changed the name to Pergamon, which is an interesting name in itself.
It's a place of hell.
Why would you set up a company?
But he did that fresh from the army.
So I've often asked myself, where did he get the money from to buy this press?
Could it be that there were people in the background helping him?
And as you rightly say, he is the man who gave us the peer review system on which the whole academic system rests.
And it's a very imperfect system, as you rightly say.
So he changed the face of not only of publishing, but also of he changed the academic landscape.
So now, if you work in a university, well, where you end up is to a great extent determined by which journals you've published in and the ranking of those journals.
There's a whole league table of academic journals.
And if you want a job at the so-called top institutions, I believe you did an undergraduate degree at one of those top institutions, then you would be expected to have a clutch of peer-reviewed journal articles from the so-called top journals.
Well, it sounds fair enough until you start looking at those top journals.
And if I gave you a choice of adjectives, broad or narrow, to describe the perspective of those journals, would you like to hazard a guess?
I'd say probably narrow.
And I would say you would be correct.
They're very heavily controlled by the system.
Yes.
So here you have a system, an academic system, where our so-called top institutions, and this works worldwide, recruit the top institutions, think Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, in America, Princeton.
They are recruiting from the ranks of academics publishing in these very rarefied top journals.
What is the quality of their work?
I chose not to work in a top institution because I wanted the freedom to research and publish in, if I wanted to, in lower ranked.
I mean, even three-star journals are quite hard to get journals accepted in.
I don't know if I'm saying enough to give you a sense of how the whole territory is controlled by peer review and where you get to work and what you're allowed to say is very much determined by peer review.
So if I wanted a job at a top institution, I would have to have my clutch of five-star journal articles.
But I could never have articles published in five-star journals on the subjects that I've researched.
It would be a sheer impossibility because they are paradigm shifting.
I wasn't going to give up a good job in industry to go into academia just to write very marginal, narrow stuff.
That wasn't why I made the shift from industry to academia.
I made the shift to do important research.
Well, what in my eyes was important was that do males and females operate a different design aesthetic?
That seemed to me a really important question.
But the answers I found could never be published in these five-star journal articles.
No, they wouldn't.
They wouldn't.
As you found at that conference of sociologists, and I'm sure it wasn't just sociologists who gave you the cold shoulder.
Groupthink means that, well, I mean, I suppose that's what Thomas Kuhn was talking about in the structure of scientific revolution.
Scientific revolutions.
Absolutely.
That you need a paradigm shift, and people are uncomfortable about paradigm shifts and what happened when it becomes the new paradigm.
But how did just yeah, it seems to me obvious that Maxwell was recruited.
He was very, very dodgy in the war.
I think he was a gangster and a thug.
He was obviously, he showed himself when he was called Ludwig Hock, I think he was called.
He showed himself amenable to being a kind of bag carrier for the people who run the world.
And I think he would have been recruited then and, as you say, funded to finance.
Well, I'm surmising I have no evidence.
No, you don't need it though, do you?
I mean, we know what their MO is.
I mean, I'm sure I've read elsewhere.
It would have been somebody like a Rothschild or similar who would have, because they have an agenda, and Maxwell would have known what his purpose was.
And one of them would be to take over academic publishing to, well, I mean, to hijack the academic sector as a result, because if you control the academic books, you control the sector.
Absolutely.
And you cannot survive, flourish as an academic in the university systems of most countries unless you publish, publish, publish.
And the higher ranking, the journal in which you publish, the better career you will have.
So, yes, it's shaped the academic system, how can we put it, the mainstream academic system in a big way.
So it's time to create a new system that's not shaped in that way.
This is my view anyway, which is why I've started Truth University, www.truthuniversity.co.uk.
And we're offering people the opportunity to do no Holzbuard research, which you won't find anywhere else.
No Holzbuard research.
I can see that.
I can see that.
Just very, very briefly, how did Maxwell establish peer review?
Did he write a paper on it or did he just interesting question?
I don't know how he did, but he made a point of approaching academics who he took the view that they like to have their ego flattered and he would offer them the opportunity to be editor-in-chief.
He always gave them fancy titles of a new journal.
So that's how he persuaded the system to come on board by offering titles and positions on these new journals.
Right, right.
So Pergamon owned a lot of the journals as well as the sort of the textbooks and the.
And it was very, very successful.
And seven years into his career running Pergamon, Pergamon Press, he bought an enormous mansion in Oxford.
I think it had 53 Heddington Hall with 53.
No, he didn't buy, I think he leased, leased Headington Hall, 53 rooms, I believe, there.
And I often ask myself, how did he fund, I mean, do you become that successful in seven years of academic journal publishing to be able to take out a lease on Heddington Hall, 53 rooms?
Or is there somebody in the background helping you?
Yeah.
don't have answers for that I think this is sooner rather than later I think we should record part two while people are sort of why you're still fresh in people's memory But in the meantime, Gloria, just tell us again where we can find you and read your stuff and things.
Well, the Truth University can be found at www.truthuniversity.co.uk and you can find articles there that I've written, if you'd like, all freely available.
I'm encouraging other academics to come and put their articles there.
So a colleague has started to put his articles there from the Conservative Woman.
They went up yesterday, I believe.
And so you can find them all freely available in the article section of the website.
And if you're minded to undertake some research of your own, my goodness, what an exciting journey of discovery awaits you.
I would say cheaper and better than any holiday you could possibly imagine.
No cues involved.
No delays.
No peer review.
You can do a diploma level piece of research, which would be, what's it, 12,000 words?
Or if you have got a really meaty bit of research you'd like to do, then you could do a master's.
That would be 40,000 words.
And this is an opportunity to change the narrative.
That's why this is so valuable.
You can become a master in your own field and you can be supervised by somebody like myself who's not too forbidding, I don't think.
And I've got colleagues who are waiting in the wings on a rafter subjects ready to supervise.
And we can change the world, can't we, James, with new bits of research.
I like to think of them as truth bombs.
I'd love you as my PhD course, supervisor, thesis supervisor.
I think you'd be really good.
I imagine you'd be quite you'd be kind, but you wouldn't miss anything.
You wouldn't miss a trick.
I'd do my best.
But, you know, there are many good people who are not content within the mainstream academic system.
Why should they be, honestly?
And there's a home for them.
We're slowly trying to build up a home for critical thinking.
Yeah.
Real critical.
Well, that can.
I think in our next chat, we should talk about, carry on a bit about how Secondary education onwards has been, well, probably primary as well, has been hijacked by an agenda, and there's no truth there.
And then we can move on to the plagues, the Great Fire, Tartaria, the true purposes of churches and synagogues and all those buildings that have got the healing centers in them.
Oh.
And I presume you're going to tell me about energy generation and stuff as well.
Oh, yes, there's a lot to be said for any.
And by the way, we've got a new conference coming up next March, which will cover some of these topics.
And that's, I've been running these for ever since I closed the door on the mainstream academic system or they closed the door on me.
I'm not sure which way to look at it.
I've been running questioning history and questioning science conferences for the last six years.
And the next one is in March next year in near Windsor, near Windsor-Heathrow.
Easily accessible.
And we've got some wonderful speakers.
This is, if anybody's interested, then email.
Sorry, I need to get a tissue.
My nose.
Hang on a minute.
It's that time of year.
Excuse me.
Email learningholidays at protonmail.com.
That's learningholidays at protonmail.com.
And we have a holiday, you see, learning.
And we learn from the speakers, but we also learn from each other.
And this is why I've always organised this as a residential event, because so much of the learning goes on over breakfast, over lunch, over dinner.
Yes.
Non-stop learning.
And the speakers for the next conference in March were there's Dr. Sam Osmanigic, who's talking about the Bosnian pyramids, which he claims are 30,000 years old.
It's an incredible age.
And I can get a flyer and put it up on the screen.
I'll put the flyer or links to the flyer below the blurb below.
I'll be talking about the subjects you mentioned, actually, which is the plagues.
Oh, well, Johnny, well, that'll be very interesting.
But we're going to talk about them as well on my podcast.
So thank you, Gloria Moss.
Do I still call you Professor Moss?
Well, I don't know.
Does it linger on the title?
Well, I'm Director of Studies at Truth University.
Okay, Director Führer.
No, I'm not Vice-Chancellor.
I'm just Director of Studies.
No, I don't think we need a hierarchy, do you?
No, we don't like hierarchy.
No, the original universities, they're called universities because they were literally, in Latin, a group of scholars and teachers.
Universitas Scholarium et Magistrum.
That was what they were called.
And from that, we get the word university.
But they were a group, Universitas Magistrorum et Scolarium.
A group of scholars and teachers.
That's all they were.
And from that, we get this edifice of vice-chancellor, deputy vice-chancellor, pro-vice-chancellor, dean, deputy dean, associate dean.
You know, extremely, it's not the original vision.
So I'm returning to the original vision because teachers and scholars need to be close to each other.
We don't need a hierarchy.
And we can keep the cost down.
Yeah.
I've got to go and walk the dog before the light goes.
So thank you, Gloria.
And thank you, dear viewers and listeners.
If you like this podcast, obviously you like the podcast because it's the best.
Like it, share it.
And do please consider becoming one of my subscribers, my paying subscribers on Substack and Patreon or wherever.
But Substack seems to be the main one, although I think it's a trap like everywhere else.
Support my sponsors and buy me a coffee if you don't want to commit to a full paid subscription.
And see you next time.
Thanks for listening and thank you again, Gloria Moss.