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

How to do things if you're not that smart and don't have any talent

adaobi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 225 posts

Re: How to do things if you're not that smart and don't have any talent

#71

Post by Applejinx »

hackerlight wrote: post #40
paxys wrote: post #14

From my experience in the tech industry I can say with utmost confidence that "not smart"/"talentless" people who are determined and hard-working lead to significantly better real world results than geniuses who are lazy, unmotivated or overall not action oriented. The vast majority of problems at any company are easy and don't need any big technological breakthroughs to solve. They are instead held back by (1) lack…

If it's in R&D, medium intelligence people simply can't contribute even if they try really hard.

I'm in R&D and am constantly reminded by other coders around me that I'm not very smart, but these smarter people are constantly doing predictable and suboptimal things in their very complicated ways and getting poor results, over and over and over.

I think I've got suckered into a clickbait substack and a circular discussion on HN to cause various people to respond each in their own silos, asserting their own worth either as self-assigned intelligent or self-assigned stupid people.

I'm a stupid person (not least for falling for that) but I get paid to think uncommon things, which turns out to be not only marketable but productive. Some of what the substack invokes is perfectly true: I get by on determination and crunch, to the point that I have to watch it (right now I'm experiencing health issues which I think trace back to the amount of crunch I can't resist doing, out of fear.)

I daresay there's usefulness in reminding people not to just pursue the 'highest intelligence' path. From where I'm standing that's a ridiculous mistake. Higher intelligence can quite easily give rise to high rationalization and rigid thinking. This is probably why some tech folks go in for self-destructive behaviors like getting wacked out on ketamine in the belief that it will increase their brain plasticity. I don't get to do that stuff with drug abuse so I have to go about it in simpler, experiential ways.

It's a 'right tool for the right job' situation. It's not broadly useful to be hyper intelligent or hyper plastic. Willingness to try and ability to care about the situation go a long, long way, and that's very much the purview of this substack post. Not a bad summary, I'd say.

Re: How to do things if you're not that smart and don't have any talent

#72

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

tharkun__ wrote: post #46
chii wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (1) lack of effort or (2) lack of organization. (3) lack of reward I say the former 2 is caused by 3. Why would anyone put in over-time to solve a problem, if they dont know how well they'd get rewarded by it? It's why small/founder owned startups get more done with less, because they know themselves how much reward they'd get when putting in the hard yards.

Your parent never mentions overtime. Personally I agree with his assessment and none of it requires overtime. Lack of effort literally means people that show the level of effort your reply seems to suggest you are putting in. A normal level of effort, not just doing exactly as much as you need not to get fired is generally enough to stand out and have good results (output and pay wise). No overtime required. A good l…

> not just doing exactly as much as you need not to get fired

This is a normal level of effort. Also, any level of effort above this is not legally overtime, but it is in spirit. And has very uncertain rewards. Might pay off in the long run (many years) but even that is unlikely.

Re: How to do things if you're not that smart and don't have any talent

#73

Post by Jensson »

corethree wrote: post #21
pk-protect-ai wrote: post #6

Summary of the text: "How to herd a heard of nerds?"

Given how people on HN think they're so smart I'm surprised this article got voted up. Usually it's some article about how high IQ correlates with people who drink water. They just vote up the article for self validation. Now it's an article for the Narutos of the world. Guess a good number of people think they're stupid. I think both sides are wrong.

You must be new here, hard work beating talent is an extremely popular topic.

People mostly reads these and see themselves as the superior side, if it is an article about hard work beating talent people see themselves as the hard worker, if it is an article about smart people doing X then of course the reader is on the smart side etc.

So an article on how most hard work is wasted since it wasn't well thought out would also be popular since there the reader would view his hard work as fruitful and only dumber people than them are wasting their time.

It is only when you start to poke hole in that self image people have built up that the downvotes starts to come. Most people aren't significantly smarter than their peer, most peoples hard work isn't well directed, but they don't want to hear those things.

Re: How to do things if you're not that smart and don't have any talent

#74

Post by the_only_law »

corethree wrote: post #21
pk-protect-ai wrote: post #6

Summary of the text: "How to herd a heard of nerds?"

Given how people on HN think they're so smart I'm surprised this article got voted up. Usually it's some article about how high IQ correlates with people who drink water. They just vote up the article for self validation. Now it's an article for the Narutos of the world. Guess a good number of people think they're stupid. I think both sides are wrong.

> Guess a good number of people think they're stupid.

My guess is it's mostly feigned humility and midwit cope.

Re: How to do things if you're not that smart and don't have any talent

#75

Post by api »

15457345234 wrote: post #69
nomilk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds of this PG quote: > If you imagine someone with 100 percent determination and 100 percent intelligence, you can discard a lot of intelligence before they stop succeeding. But if you start discarding determination, you very quickly get an ineffectual and perpetual grad student. Not the same source, but similar message and very much worth the watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8TwkfxEdJ0

Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. -- Ronald Reagan

This feeds into one of my pet hypotheses about human ability: the most important biological factors determining success lie not in whatever influences IQ or other intelligence or creativity attributes but in the dopamine system.

Take 20 IQ points from someone and replace that with the ability to engage focus and flow state at will and see what happens.

Our dopamine system is tuned for a world that is far slower than this one and largely unchanging. From the perspective of modernity almost all humans exist in a state of catatonic depression. Few humans are able to sustain the level of focus and activity that would be optimal in today's world. When we do, in short bursts, we see amazing results.

Unfortunately drugs like amphetamines have side effects and are addictive. From what I've seen amphetamines and similar focus drugs often lead to a lot of focus and engagement but mis-regulated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf3e1F1a0Hg

An AI would not need to be superintelligent to outcompete humans in virtually any endeavor. It would just need to have ordinary human intelligence plus infinite tireless focus.

This also implies that a way to boost focus that worked better than amphetamine (and without addiction and other side effects) and similar things would be much more significant for human potential than a way to boost IQ.

The other alternative would be to drastically extend life span, allowing us to slow down and be okay with that. The reason we tend to fast forward everything so much is that we don't live very long. The systems of capital and capital allocation that drive society run at a speed that is far in excess of what our dopamine systems are adapted to handle so they can deliver results within an acceptably small fraction of a human life span.

Either we are too slow or too short lived. Pick one.

Re: How to do things if you're not that smart and don't have any talent

#76

Post by 6510 »

KronisLV wrote: post #58
paxys wrote: post #14

From my experience in the tech industry I can say with utmost confidence that "not smart"/"talentless" people who are determined and hard-working lead to significantly better real world results than geniuses who are lazy, unmotivated or overall not action oriented. The vast majority of problems at any company are easy and don't need any big technological breakthroughs to solve. They are instead held back by (1) lack…

> From my experience in the tech industry I can say with utmost confidence that "not smart"/"talentless" people who are determined and hard-working lead to significantly better real world results than geniuses who are lazy, unmotivated or overall not action oriented. This hit me especially hard in university, where I went from being "the smart kid" to suddenly encountering subjects where I could no longer get by with…

> I could no longer get by with crunching on the evening before the test and instead needed to actually have a work ethic for studying long term.

haha, I use to do it an hour before the test. I one time successfully "read" 5 books during a 20 min train ride.

I had this standard joke with a guy in my class where I would pretend the test was about the next chapter. He knew I was joking but freaked out completely ~ every time. He started working weeks in advance on things that should imho take 5 minutes then he would barely pass.

And then it suddenly involved actual work, something I was 100% unfamiliar with. The exotically untalented guy knew he had to start MONTHS in advance.

I ran into him 30 years later. He has a fabulous job that involves weekly courses. I ask him if he got any better at studying over all those years. He said he still starts studying all weekend, when he gets home and after dinner and still panics along the way and freaks out at 1 am on a daily basis - non of it makes any sense! After he barely passes the test he continues to study the material because he needs to know it but doesn't.

It's kinda sad as it sounds like he has no life, then again it is also extremely impressive and there must be something about the process that he really loves.

Others might think different, he is a legend to me.

Re: How to do things if you're not that smart and don't have any talent

#77

Post by victor106 »

15457345234 wrote: post #69
nomilk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds of this PG quote: > If you imagine someone with 100 percent determination and 100 percent intelligence, you can discard a lot of intelligence before they stop succeeding. But if you start discarding determination, you very quickly get an ineffectual and perpetual grad student. Not the same source, but similar message and very much worth the watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8TwkfxEdJ0

Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. -- Ronald Reagan

I am not sure that quote is attributed to Ronald Reagan

It’s by Calvin Coolidge

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2749-nothing-in-this-world-...

Re: How to do things if you're not that smart and don't have any talent

#78

Post by shoubidouwah »

arethuza wrote: post #65
saiya-jin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of IT problems in the world doesn't require brilliance in any way, just consistency and effort put in. Anytime some good junior tries to put the brilliance into place it doesn't require it, its a sad story about literal technical debt down the line. But good luck explaining this to most smart folks who are running around with big hammer trying as much new stuff as possible.

In my humble opinion, it actually requires a lot of intelligence to do really stupid things...

reminds me of the saying that every year, the intelligence threshold needed to end the world drops a bit more - cannot for the life of me find it again...

Re: How to do things if you're not that smart and don't have any talent

#79

Post by Applejinx »

arisAlexis wrote: post #37

There could be a psychology study on how fast and who pressed or not on the link

…and how many self-help books they have purchased over the course of their lives :)

I'm certainly guilty of the latter, and recognized the link as something that would scratch that still-relevant itch. Though I've grown out of compulsively chasing the purple cow :)

Re: How to do things if you're not that smart and don't have any talent

#80

Post by weast »

Jensson wrote: post #66
nomilk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds of this PG quote: > If you imagine someone with 100 percent determination and 100 percent intelligence, you can discard a lot of intelligence before they stop succeeding. But if you start discarding determination, you very quickly get an ineffectual and perpetual grad student. Not the same source, but similar message and very much worth the watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8TwkfxEdJ0

100 percent determination describes most conspiracy theorists, it isn't a good trait to have that much of. So I'd argue that you need to drop quite a bit of it for the person to even reach average effectiveness, otherwise the person will be stuck trying things that will never work.

That is a really good point. Determination without direction (or at least a misguided one) produces a lot of wasted energy. i guess the idea here of determination with lack of intelligenxe assumes some sort of intellectually elite group that can steer the determined work to some optimal outcome.
Post reply on HN