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

181–190 of 336 posts

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#181

Post by emacsgifs »

wolfgke wrote: post #155
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.

> I don't know. Why do we push files to production on a Friday evening? Because we worked for the whole week on it and now want that other people can see it on their weekend. Since we are so proud of our work and trust in its quality, we are willing to do an extra shift on the weekend, should problems occur.

Are you missing a /s?

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#182

Post by coolso »

Jyaif wrote: post #161
tormeh wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> but dumb he ain't He puts himself in trouble all the time via tweets. That's pretty dumb in my book. > Underestimating the guy is unwise I agree with that. Underestimating someone with as little honor and ethics as Trump is dangerous.

He mostly gets himself in trouble with the media, and most people hate the media. Trump won because he got himself in trouble with the establishment all the time. Not sure how that’s dumb.

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#183

Post by wolfgke »

m104 wrote: post #10
oblib wrote: post #5

When I was a kid my family would often chide me for using "big words" and told I was trying to "impress everyone" doing that. The truth is, I was just trying to relate something I'd learned and thought was interesting and every time that happened I was kind of shocked and left wondering how they'd missed the gist of what I was talking about. My own mother did it. I finally stopped sharing things I thought they'd atta…

As the article points out, relatability is the key to bridging the gaps of knowledge and understanding between people. I think, at least in the USA, there is cultural pressure against "talking down to" others, at it indicates either that the speaker is an outsider or is attempting to set themselves apart intellectually from their peers. > "I do know that over the years I've pointed out why something wouldn't work as…

> I think, at least in the USA, there is cultural pressure against "talking down to" others, a[s] it indicates either that the speaker is an outsider or is attempting to set themselves apart intellectually from their peers.

Not living in the US: Where is the cultural problem in setting oneself apart intellectually from the peers?

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#184

Post by trevyn »

killjoywashere wrote: post #151
trevyn wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have examples or references for the types of charismatic speech and creative metaphors you used?

Charisma: if you like it, it's charisma, if you don't it's a sense of entitlement. Metaphors: they're cooked up in the moment.

Sorry, what do you mean by “if you like it”?

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#185

Post by wolfgke »

kingraoul3 wrote: post #30
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…

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

I can explain advanced mathematics simply. But then my explanation will take three hours instead of three minutes. Do you want to hear it?!

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#186

Post by WalterBright »

Nomentatus wrote: post #165
quantdev wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's not clear if boom and busts are "a thing" in free markets. We've had far worse booms and busts, and at a higher pace, ever since the Federal Reserve was created and has artificially modified the interest rate. The Fed lowers the interest rate because they have an incentive for the economy to perform well, because they want to look good (Alan Greenspan admitted he kept interest rates lower longer than h…

My understanding of economic history, including the 1870s (but many other busts, too), is quite different. Can you cite a source? I happen to be reading "A History of The World Economy", by James Foreman-Pack. It contradicts you at every turn (Chapter 6 esp) and notes there was a time when the U.S. was the odd man out, lacking a national bank and suffered more severe downturns than other nations, amongst other things…

"And the Reserve System, established in response to monetary instability, had the power to exercise deliberate control over the stock of money and so could take advantage of this possibility to promote monetary stability. That conjecture is not in accord with what actually happened. As is clear to the naked eye in Chart 1, the stock of money shows larger fluctuations after 1914 than before 1914 and this is true even if the large wartime increases in the stock of money are excluded. The blind, undesigned, and quasi-automatic working of the gold Standard turned out to produce a greater measure of predictability and regularity--per-haps because its discipline was impersonal and inescapable--than did deliberate and conscious control exercised within institutional arrangements intended to promote monetary stability."

Friedman's "Monetary History of the United States" pg 9-10

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#187

Post by jancsika »

Jtsummers wrote: post #83
jancsika wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand the upshot. If you were shown to be intelligent enough to be bumped up a couple of grades, you were also intelligent enough to choose the most appropriate language for your audience. If people furrowed their brow at "nodes", "miners" and "Byzantine fault tolerance", degrade gracefully to the a simple story of the "Two Generals Problem." That pattern doesn't work for everything, but it certai…

Intelligent kids tend to not be observant with respect to other people's reactions. This is why nerds and geeks were social outcasts (until the terms got rebranded). This lack of awareness doesn't mean they aren't intelligent, it means they're kids. Gaining the kind of emotional/social intelligence ot not geek out like that, or to learn to change your language, requires socialization and experience.

All kids tend not to be observant wrt other people's reactions. The ability to communicate with a broad audience at a young age is itself a sign of intelligence.

My point is that OP was treating the "big words" dismissal merely as a signifier of intelligence. It's also a signifier that one lacks the ability to communicate clearly with others. That's hardly a revelation wrt 4th graders, but it's worthy of reflection at whatever age the OP happens to be now. I know plenty of people who enjoy wearing that inability as a fashion just as people now buy designer "nerd glasses."

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#188

Post by AnthonyMouse »

XorNot wrote: post #129
lobo_tuerto wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the same boat as you. I hate politics and back-stabbing environments. Why can't everybody just do what it's supposed to do in a work environment?

People who "hate politics" tend to create a lot of it. Being politically savvy/expedient is as much about knowing how to get along with people as it is getting what you want.

> People who "hate politics" tend to create a lot of it.

There is a reason for that.

Politics is basically the process of pasting kludges together until the net result is something that no powerful group hates enough to be willing to smash it all to smithereens with a sledgehammer.

But if you objectively look at any of the kludges individually, or even the overall result after a few years, it's a horrific mess. A horrific mess at a Nash equilibrium. So as soon as you start picking apart any subsection of the omnishambles, everything falls out of balance and someone starts screaming for you to stop.

And it is a horrific mess that should be smashed to smithereens with a sledgehammer every few years, but the only way to do that is to wipe the slate clean and start over from scratch with multilateral negotiations between two hundred separate parties. Which is a ton of work that nobody wants to do when they can get away with kicking the can down the road for another year.

So anybody who tries to smash up any part of the mess has to fight everyone who would rather keep the status quo than do the work to fix it right now.

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#189

Post by Daishiman »

monochromatic wrote: post #146
macintux wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And in his first year as president, he's been far more effective at getting things done than most. Citation (other than him or his spokespersons) needed.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-top-9-accomplishmen... http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/11/13/president-trumps-2017-rep...

Those are BS accomplishments and their twisting of logic is beyond ludicrous.

Re: Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders

#190

Post by WalterBright »

padobson wrote: post #57
guelo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help". As if boom and bust business cycles aren't a thing in free markets. Or monopolies. Or monetary policy. Or externalized costs. Or tragedy of the commons. That's just run of the mill anti-intellectualism.

Or monetary policy. There are laissez faire arguments to counter every example you provided, but calling monetary policy laissez faire is oxymoronic or, if you prefer, anti-intellectual.

There was no monetary policy in the US prior to 1914.
Post reply on HN