Live data from Hacker News

The Curse of Smart People (2014)

apenwarr.ca

141–150 of 166 posts

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#141
post #139

> very easy to describe all your successes (project not canceled) in terms of your team's greatness, and all your failures (project canceled) in terms of other people's capriciousness. I see this belief in probably about 80% of people I encounter, and it has little correlation with how smart one is. I like to hang out with people who take responsibility for their failures rather than complaining about how circumstanc…

> I see this belief in probably about 80% of people I encounter, and it has little correlation with how smart one is. The virtue he is discussing is humility vs pride, and I think you're right that it isn't really correlated with intelligence. People all over the IQ spectrum will exhibit both. Pride may be a common stumbling block to those who don't often experience failure though (i.e in the smarter crowd), because…

It's more than that. People who take personal responsibility for failures in their life empower themselves to fix it, find a way around it, do better next time, etc.

People who consider themselves as victims believe there's nothing they can do to improve their lot, and so do not.

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#142

I strongly believe that we should not easily segregate people into a smart kind and a not-so-smart kind. Intelligence comes in many ways and the genetics and upbringing of a person will make their intelligence manifest in different ways. Someone being good at something, does not automatically equate to a high level of intelligence or smartness but rather a high degree of familiarity with the topic. Familiarity can be…

> The author says that smart, successful people are cursed with over-confidence due to them knowing one thing very well. But how can you call a person smart if they do not even possess the ability to properly self-reflect. Is that not the one thing that should define smartness? I've more often heard the opposite stated, that people who are smart have a tendency to see multiple sides of every issue and struggle to com…

The Dunning–Kruger effect?

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Have you done this before?" Very nice. And to estimate robust competence , perhaps: "Have you focused on this? Long-term, with reflective practice, and embedded in a critical community?" I don't know how to make that pithy. "Is this your thing?", "Is this your life?", "Are you a contender?", ...? I'm interested transformative improvement of science and engineering educational content, through greatly increased use…

> A non-biology MIT professor may have no idea what DNA is. I would be fairly shocked if more than 0.1% of the time this was the case. PS: I loved the second link!

> shocked if more than 0.1%

MIT has ~1000 non-emeritus professors. So order 0.1% would permit 3 cases. But that's including biology, and non-science/non-engineering, which I didn't include. So it's at least low order 1%. And I'd be unsurprised if it's at least several percent. And not shocked by ten.

Consider an old professor. They may well have not had a biology class in high-school or college, let alone graduate school. And never touched biology professionally. And either not have had kids, or was not deeply involved in their science education. So we're down to "ambient general knowledge". What percent of the general population of PhD's with only ambient exposure, have any idea what DNA is? And many professors are among the busiest people I know. Imagine asking a serial startup CEO, what do you mean you don't know who entertainer-X is, aren't you watching TV and following popular culture? Well, no. So no need for shocked?

Very rarely, a professor giving a talk, will put the audience on the spot. A room of EE/CS professors may not recognize astronomical tidal forces. Half a room of MechE profs may think red blood cells are thinly scattered in blood.

Sure, common curiosity trims the numbers. But it's not universal. A now-retired physics professor might respond to a suggestion that they use biological examples in their intro physics problems, with "WHAT! You want me to teach... biology?!?!?!".

At the other extreme, there are a few impressive polymaths. But even there, out of field, competence is uneven and has holes. Impressive, impressive, WTF basic misconception, impressive... Similar to comments that when Hans Rosling started doing immigration, he tripped on some basic misconceptions.

Out of field, one isn't "embedded in a critical community". Part of how science works, is people being very afraid of being embarrassed by getting it wrong in front of their peers, and so putting in the effort and questioning to avoid that. Out of field, no one cares. One still has some habits of thought, but the edge isn't there.

And baseline unmotivated competence is not high. There's an old video[1] made out of Harvard, which includes graduating MIT and Harvard students, given a battery, one long wire, and a small lightbulb, and asked to make light. And failing, and failing, and...

[1] https://www.learner.org/resources/series26.html

Re "PS: I loved the second link!", thanks! :)

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#144
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> other skills often seen as the antithesis of being smart Pray tell, what, specifically, are these skills?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=meme+particular+skills+taken&aiar=...

Well thanks a lot for the useless meme...

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought that the "accelerated" programs in public schools perpetuate this issue. There were some very sharp kids there for sure, but it might as well have been called the "conscientious track" since it was full of children who proved that they could sit quiet, learn from reading on their own, navigate institutions, etc. All the things rich parents make their children do anyway. I've met too many individuals…

The problem with that is why should those kids that can behave themselves (which used to not just be 'rich kids') be penalized by being stuck in an environment that has to slow down because half the class didn't hear the teacher the first four times because they choose not to pay attention. In high school, I just stopped showing up. Classes were going too slow for me and didn't hold my attention. I'm not super intell…

If they were advocating for the removal of the programs then it was an implication I missed. I think the posters only concern was that the classes contribute to the common misinterpretation of what smart is.

Maybe it would be better to just advertise them for what they are (according to that poster) and call them the "conscientious track"? That way kids who want in have something obvious and actionable to work towards other than "well, if you're smart you'll get accepted and if you're not, welp, enjoy burger flipping!"

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#146
post #127
post #99

I am fascinated by the number of comments made by people who actually think they're so smart, it's the society (made of billions of people) that's dumb. 1 Mind > 7.5B Minds ? I tend to think these companies don't hire smart people. They hire psychologically deviant people who will both comply without a problem, and who will do mean things to others because they have a superiority complex... a little like german engin…

"1 Mind > 7.5B Minds ?" In some cases, yes. 7.5B people didn't discover relativity or invent the airplane. Some few specific people did. "I tend to think these companies don't hire smart people. They hire psychologically deviant people who will both comply without a problem, and who will do mean things to others because they have a superiority complex... a little like german engineers during WWII ;)" Maybe you're jus…

Invention is a continuous process.

If you can't detect deviant people in these companies, you might consider reading JG Ballard for example.

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#147
post #127
post #99

I am fascinated by the number of comments made by people who actually think they're so smart, it's the society (made of billions of people) that's dumb. 1 Mind > 7.5B Minds ? I tend to think these companies don't hire smart people. They hire psychologically deviant people who will both comply without a problem, and who will do mean things to others because they have a superiority complex... a little like german engin…

"1 Mind > 7.5B Minds ?" In some cases, yes. 7.5B people didn't discover relativity or invent the airplane. Some few specific people did. "I tend to think these companies don't hire smart people. They hire psychologically deviant people who will both comply without a problem, and who will do mean things to others because they have a superiority complex... a little like german engineers during WWII ;)" Maybe you're jus…

Invention is a continuous process.

If you can't detect deviant people in these companies, you might consider reading JG Ballard for example.

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#148
post #127
post #99

I am fascinated by the number of comments made by people who actually think they're so smart, it's the society (made of billions of people) that's dumb. 1 Mind > 7.5B Minds ? I tend to think these companies don't hire smart people. They hire psychologically deviant people who will both comply without a problem, and who will do mean things to others because they have a superiority complex... a little like german engin…

"1 Mind > 7.5B Minds ?" In some cases, yes. 7.5B people didn't discover relativity or invent the airplane. Some few specific people did. "I tend to think these companies don't hire smart people. They hire psychologically deviant people who will both comply without a problem, and who will do mean things to others because they have a superiority complex... a little like german engineers during WWII ;)" Maybe you're jus…

Invention is a continuous process.

If you can't detect deviant people in these companies, you might consider reading JG Ballard for example.

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#149
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's really something there that can't just be dismissed as "Just learn to enjoy the mundane". Go spend some time around people significantly more mentally challenged than yourself, like young children, and make an effort to enjoy their recreational activities in the same way that they do directly, and I think you'll find some things they genuinely enjoy that are just too simple for you, like watching a si…

> Go spend some time around people significantly more mentally challenged than yourself...and I think you'll find some things they genuinely enjoy that are just too simple for you... Speaking as a non-smart person of boringly average IQ, so perhaps I'm inflicted with the myopia of someone without the raw intellectual horsepower of a 2-3 standard deviation smart person. But I do have an insatiable curiosity about the…

Thanks for the long reply. I agree with much of what you wrote.
Post reply on HN