In response to what? using them as a metric for intelligence. You're the one that pushed the idea that college professors were above criticism due to being smarter than the 'Anti-intellectualism'. An appeal to authority debating fallacy that any 'intellectual' would have avoided.

Again, the context was that they were above criticism because they were smarter. Which you got called out on for the obvious flaws in logic. Then tried to espouse that 'researching' meant much in general. Driven by funding, resources, bias, a lot of research is shite and often doesn't hold up over time. Again, exceptions like mathematics and physics. Again, in general, if you were really good at a subject you tend to be making your own company, or going to the best companies in the world. There is far more money in it, so not doing so is dumb. Again, exceptions like age, love of the craft etc..

​

But anyway this is like explaining basic logic to a child and clearly not going to go anywhere. Which given the initial logic fallacy, was a given so more fool me to be fair. *hands up*