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

A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 438 posts

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#221

Post by skriticos2 »

jjeaff wrote: post #56

I agree with the premise of this article. That armchair quarterbacking is rarely helpful and usually oversimplified. But I dislike the common implication in the headline, which is that intelligence somehow always equates to wealth. First of all, it's not always easy to judge how wealthy another person is, no matter their profession or outward appearance. Secondly, I think we all need to disuade ourselves of the notio…

I concur. It really depends on the reward function you chaise.

Let's say you are a genius OCD person being elated by seeing the numbers on your bank accounts go up and nothing much else. You live 60-90 years and at the end you have some big number there. In this case you were successful.

Let's say you are a more typical person, you'll probably have a larger set of reward functions and they may even change over time. Having money on the account to be able to cover costs and do some vanity spending is definitely rewarding to a point - until it becomes hollow. But then there are all those other reward functions, like maintaining a family, seeing your kids grow up, see the world, play games, learn new things and maybe build or invent a thing or two. Maybe just shine as a social focal point or any number of other things. Maybe just watching turtles in various environments.

The only thing that we can't extend as a reward function is acquiring more time, like money on the bank account. So balancing the reward functions for a reasonable contentedness with life is generally what we strive to do, even if we don't spell it out that way.

We start young and see all the possibilities and the scarceness of time is not a pressing matter - reward functions are more about enjoying life. Then with a family you see time passing, become more aware of it. You learn from the things you messed up and know that some things can't be fixed and your reward function will become more about stability and preservation.

And then you die.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#222

Post by gizmo »

Grustaf wrote: post #166
DecayingOrganic wrote: post #28

While I agree with the article, it is important to distinguish the macro from the micro point of view. From the micro point of view, a talented individual has a greater a priori probability to reach a high level of success than a moderately gifted one. On the other hand, from the macro point of view of the entire society, the probability to find moderately gifted individuals at the top levels of success is greater th…

I think it's mostly just that intelligence is not terribly important for success. Tenacity, street smart, charisma, connections, passion are all more important than IQ.

Intelligence is hugely important for any kind of outlier success. It's no coincidence that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Jim Simons are undeniably brilliant.

The claim that charisma, street smarts, or connections are more important than intelligence is absurd. There are so many fields in which those things just don't matter. If you're not charismatic don't pursue a career in a field that requires charisma. Simple.

It's easy to think that intelligence isn't a strong predictor for success because there are many intelligent people who don't accomplish much. But there are many more charismatic and well-connected people who don't accomplish much! But we don't culturally expect charismatic people to automatically become successful, like we do for smart kids. That's where the real difference is.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#223

Post by robert_g »

Dismissing a successful person but seeming "dumb" person is a benefit to them. Now, they can continue succeeding with less scrutiny.

For a long time I thought many politicians were "dumb" based on their public comments, propelled only by their connections. Now, when I look up some politicians who's spouting objectively false / misleading statements and find they've graduated a top-tier university and have a JD I realize these are not intellectually stupid people. They're skilled in their field, have drive, and less empathy/morals than others.

Now, I watch these "dumb" people more closely.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#224

Post by iateanapple »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #117
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which leads to the following: How do you measure if someone is a good president? What measurements do you use to claim Trump is not a good president? Surely it can't be approval ratings since you can't expect public to understand nuances behind the decisions and what the president actually has to be doing? It can't be just GDP because GDP might have been going up anyway? It can't be what the president is saying in pu…

Some combination of GINI, average life expectancy, number of bankruptcies, business closures, unemployment, changes in all-cause mortality, median household debt, disposable income, educational attainment, and so on. If you look at a basket of well-being measures as opposed to raw GDP it's hard to argue that Trump has done a good job. Of course Covid has had a big effect. But there were many policy options for handli…

> If you look at a basket of well-being measures as opposed to raw GDP it's hard to argue

It is too soon to argue any of those measures.

You can’t take a single moment in time in the middle of a crisis to judge.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#225

Post by HPsquared »

V-2 wrote: post #181

A non-native speaker here - what does "debacletacular" mean? The word only has a few hits on Google. I understand it's a neologism of sorts, a conflation, but what's the meaning? I'm guessing "a spectacular debacle" - AKA "epic fail"?

It's an adjective, based on 'spectacular'. It is to 'debacle' as 'spectacular' is to 'spectacle'. 'Spectacular' meaing "relating to, or having the character of, a spectacle" (Wiktionary). So it would mean something like 'relating to, or having the character of, a debacle' - with hints of 'spectacular debacle'.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#226

Post by krapp »

wmeredith wrote: post #200
rubidium wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s part of the pitch. He’s not selling to Mexico.

This is what a lot of people don’t get. All the stupid shit he says is for his base. He doesn’t care about Mexico.

People get that, they just disagree that it's a sign of political genius on his part.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#227

Post by tafox »

globular-toast wrote: post #217
xtiansimon wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget good looks and a rich uncle to bail you out of a jam.

These two things are more important than most people are prepared to admit. Very few people ever do the "rags to riches" thing. The few that do are probably good looking. Some people are just born with the ability to be far more successful than others.

I agree, but luckily everyone is born with the ability to define what success means to them.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#228

Post by [deleted] »

mam2 wrote: post #109
baddox wrote: post #84

I don’t really understand the point of the article. It seems to be challenging an assumption that being “smart” has something to do with being financially successful. But why would we start with that assumption? Why would we conflate being “intelligent” with being good at making money? To me, this seems as preposterous as asking “if you’re so smart, why are you so bad at playing the violin, or why aren’t you a Hollyw…

Nah it just means too many people think they are "smart" while not applying their supposed edge to get any practical thing done better. Money is just one example. The baseline is "if you are so smart why how come you don't have a better life", this can be more money, a better job, more time for your children, a hotter wife for some. If you don't like the materialistic versions, My personal version of it is "if you ar…

[deleted]

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#229

Post by Kye »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #191
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or their family donated enough money to an Ivy to have a building named after them.

It means that not only do they have a business idea (or stole one), but they have the network and (financial) risk buffer to develop it into a business. One thing to keep in mind is that the majority of businesses and products fail. Remember survivorship bias. For every successful Netflix there are a dozen failed movie streaming services. Anyone who has had a few weeks worth of software engineering can produce a Twit…

Mastodon does okay. It's not as big as Twitter, but people who stick with it are happy with what they have. All it did was flip the model: interconnected, community-funded instances instead of one big, expensive to run silo.
Post reply on HN