Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 336 posts

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#261

Post by justin66 »

tormeh wrote: post #99
mlevental wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a crock. it was a crock when it was written and it's still a crock now. the idea that someone can for 8 years in the spotlight disguise themselves so much so that appear wholly opposite is ludicrous. it takes months for professional actors to produce 90 minutes of performance - the guy was on camera for literally weeks. he's not "smarter than you" this kind of revisionist nonsense is politically motivated - p…

Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. Trump is smart. I would be in literal, not figurative, disbelief if any president in the history of modern US weren't. The competition for that position is very sharp and only the best make it. There are many problems with Trump, but IQ isn't one of them. Hitler wasn't dumb either. Being a good demagogue is hard. The strategy and s…

> Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not.

It is more a question of whether the right people want you to.

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#262

Post by bjourne »

Maybe I'm just dumb. But I read tfa twice now, and I can't find a hint of an explanation. If I read an article is titled "Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders" I expect to read about why people dislike really smart leaders. I feel that perhaps this article is just clickbait.

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#263

Post by rhino369 »

BeetleB wrote: post #43
borplk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rarely use big words when there's a simpler one that has almost the exact same meaning. Sometimes I'm communicating something quite precise and nuanced. In those cases I may use big words because it is the right word to use. English is my 2nd language as well, so if nothing else I think I would deserve some credit for having developed a good vocabulary. It annoys me when people dismiss the precision in the language…

>I rarely use big words when there's a simpler one that has almost the exact same meaning. Yes, but the simpler one isn't necessarily the one that pops up into your head. Always opting for the simpler word means a less natural dialog flow for some.

Part of good communication is knowing your audience.

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#264

Post by amateurpolymath »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #192
maigret wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then, there must be a visible, provable correlation between economist activities and inequality.

Yes. https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1429/19/142919512461... The late 1970s were when neoliberal economic fundamentalism took over public policy. The graph shows the effect on equality.

I don't see this as evidence that economists => inequality. Even if we accept the notion that economists are directly responsible for growing inequality, it's worth remembering that there are disagreements within their ranks.

I would argue this is when most economists lost influence in Washington, while a few like Art Laffer gained massive influence. The New Deal era prior to this was largely motivated by the work of noted economist John Maynard Keynes. Although the causality is debated, the New Deal was followed by recovery and economic growth. Economists gained influence in the public sphere because of the effectiveness, real or imagined, or "Keynesian" economic policy. These folks had lost sway in Washington by the early 70s due to the stagflation crisis[1] and the collapse of the "New Deal coalition" after the tumultuous 1968 presidential election.

The late 1970s was dominated by the ideas of economists like Art Laffer, who took an uncontroversial economic idea "tax revenue is maximized at some point between 0% and 100%" and turned it into "the tax revenue maximizing rate must be lower than our current rate" without presenting sufficient evidence for his claim. This was a convenient for some in Washington who already believed this to be true, and thus the "Laffer curve" was born. The following era of deregulation and lower taxes on the wealthy likely played a large role in increasing income inequality.

[1] The causes of stagflation are still debated, but I am convinced this was directly caused by the OPEC oil cartel using it's market power to quickly inflate the price of oil by 400%, creating a massive supply shock that started the stagflation spiral.

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#265

Post by sagebird »

There is a simpler explanation. It is the Peter principle.

A person is promoted until failure. All else being equal, if two people are leaders, leader A will be on average as good as leader B. If one were significantly better, they would be promoted to the next level - eg a retired philanthropist billionaire or enlightened monk or what have you.

If P and Q are qualities correlated with leadership, if P and Q are independently randomly distributed, then a leader with higher P is expected to have a lower Q.

An analogy: farmers who grew 2 truck loads of bananas meet up to compare farms. On average the farms are 4 square miles. If farmer Joe tells you his farm is half a mile wide, you might guess it is 8 miles high, because the area is expected to be average. There was no causation at work — having a half mile wide plot did not cause the plot to be 8 miles tall.

Why should we assume that there is a causal link between high iq and being disliked, when it could be chalked up to correlation between factors of an equivalence relation? High iq allows non-charasmatics to function higher than they normally would, just as charisma may make up for a lack of brains.

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#266

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

Raphmedia wrote: post #143
Zak wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to ask... Why did sailors try to drive through the closed base gate and test 440V circuits with their fingers?

I don't know. Why do we push files to production on a Friday evening? Why do we snipe hot-fixes into production via FTP? Because we are all crazy & lazy bums, I would guess.

Because higher ups forced us to?

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#267

Post by harlanji »

logfromblammo wrote: post #50
Isamu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Why are you always trying to impress everyone by using big words." Yeah, I had similar experiences. I read a lot of books and absorbed their vocabulary, and sometimes it would slip out. I would just say what's on my mind, and that's what other people do, right? Then I would get into trouble also by pausing to weigh my words, people read too much into your pause before answering them. Or I just wouldn't say much, b…

Whenever I paused to consider my next words, someone would start talking into my silence and then accuse me of interrupting them when I tried to continue. I eventually realized that I wasn't bad at speaking; I just had a different style. Some people are more agile in conversation, because they do not think about what they want to say before activating their mouth-parts to make the noises. They jump right in, by using…

It's not just here in the US, I've had similar culture shock moving from Minneapolis to San Francisco. I've had endless pain at work trying to communicate an idea quickly enough and not being able to have conversations that feel genuine/curious/reciprocal (more defensive). I'm still not sure if it was because I'd earned my respect there so people paid close attention vs. n00b here, or that the culture was genuinely different. I have friends from there/that time here now, we have good discussions still.

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#269

Post by Fricken »

mulmen wrote: post #258
killjoywashere wrote: post #87

Personal anecdote, but I wonder if my experience as a junior officer in the Navy helped with this. The last comments in the piece are that intelligent leaders should 1) seek creative metaphors and 2) speak charismatically. Coming to the fleet from a bachelor's in physics, I knew I was reasonably intelligent, but also that there were some people much smarter than me (at least my battered ego assured me of that). So, w…

I don't have military experience and I will stop short of saying I wish I did because I think that does a disservice to both of us. What I will say is that the vets I have worked with have been excellent contributors and leaders. I work in a place that values strong leadership and makes a point of hiring veterans. It would be easy to dismiss that as public relations fluff but I truly believe vets make an invaluable c…

The theory is that Israel punches above it's weight class in the tech/startup sector at least in part because most everybody there has at least some military training.

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#270

Post by Terr_ »

glockenspielen wrote: post #176
Raphmedia wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Why do we push files to production on a Friday evening? Why do we snipe hot-fixes into production via FTP? Because we are all crazy & lazy bums, I would guess.

Good use of metaphor.

> metaphor

Simile. Or analogy, perhaps.

... Is that kind of pedantic correction a sign of unlikable intelligence? :P

Post reply on HN