Live data from Hacker News

The Curse of Smart People (2014)

apenwarr.ca

51–60 of 166 posts

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#51
post #7

My pet theory: much of 'gut feelings' and intuition boils down to having our internal black box predict the behavior of other people. When you are 'average', this often simplifies to reasoning about what you would do in the same circumstances, which is relatively easy. If you are 3 standard deviations out, you'll have to compensate that consciously, which is inaccurate and difficult and slow. This is like how UI desi…

I've got a similar-ish theory. "Smart" people get rewarded as a child or adolescent for doing "smart" behavior, which teaches them to interact with deeper and richer observations and insights. If you don't get trained as a "smart" person, you get better responses to surface appearances.

The slowness comes out of this natively - "smart" children are taught to do more complicated things with social data, and brains need more time to get the sensory data necessary for more complicated behaviors. It takes a tenth of a second for the Patellar reflex, about a second to recognize a friend and wave hello, and a conversation to get someone on board with your project.

No magic required, just training the same sort of behaviors normal people have in the same sort of way. The most difficult part is un-learning "impress people with how clever you are" behaviors.

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#52
post #7

My pet theory: much of 'gut feelings' and intuition boils down to having our internal black box predict the behavior of other people. When you are 'average', this often simplifies to reasoning about what you would do in the same circumstances, which is relatively easy. If you are 3 standard deviations out, you'll have to compensate that consciously, which is inaccurate and difficult and slow. This is like how UI desi…

Agree. One of my friends is pretty smart (at least, above above-average) and works in the tech industry. When he was young he had to "simulate" his emotions to "look like a normal person." He had to think what normal people would feel under his situation and tried to feel that way (or tried to make himself looked feeling that way in front of people). For example, he thinks that crying on funerals is illogical, becaus…

This could also be true of less intelligent people, and not true of more intelligent people.

Edit: typo

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#53
post #50
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps if everyone started from the same point this would be true. However, not only has everyone not started from the same point By deciding to have children or not (and if yes: how many?), parents vote about the distribution of the startup positions for the next generation. EDIT: In other words: Poor people should rather be angry about their parents than about the system.

I honestly don't even know what to say... 1. "Parents vote about the distribution of the startup positions for the next generation." What? 2. "Poor people should rather be angry about their parents than about the system." Are you serious? What good is that going to do? Sorry, but you must be living quite a privileged, or sheltered life if you believe these things.

Reproduction has a very well-earned taboo thanks to the terrible eugenics trends of the early 20th century. But, this taboo prevents us from seeing some things clearly. One of those things we tend to avoid thinking about as a society is the who/when/why of parenting, and the long-term effects of those decisions (or lack thereof).

The movie Idiocracy satirized one aspect of this, but it still doesn't get much discussion in terms of family planning on a societal scale -- whether to encourage or discourage childbearing, whether some groups should be encouraged more than others and the moral questions thereby raised, etc.

So, acting shocked and invoking "privilege" doesn't move the conversation forward, when there is ample underexplored territory in which to do so.

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#54
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a smart person, I see things a different way. There are certain hobbies that are only appeal to smart people, like pure math. But there are a lot of things that appeal to a broad range of people, like sport, arts, music and literature. I think it's very good to get involved in these things because they bring balance and a way to related to other people. In fact I created a "no programming related hobbies" rule for…

You sound like a good person. If you're ever in Chicago hmu. We can Judo in the park.

Thanks, will do!

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#55

Here's a summary for why smart people are "cursed": If you are two or 3 standard deviations about the mean, you'll quickly realize society is optimized and caters to the average intelligence. You'll find it very boring and frustrating having to deal with rules and decisions that do not make sense. You must continually push yourself to stay entertained and meet like-minded people otherwise you'll get very depressed th…

There's certainly some truth to this, especially in certain anti-intellectual societies and time periods. But many highly intelligent people have been truly gifted not only with intelligence but with the respect and even adoration of others.

You should read the biography of John von Neumann.[1] He's deserved the term "genius" if anyone ever did. George Polya[2], famous author of the math classic "How to Solve It"[3] wrote of him "Johnny was the only student I was ever afraid of. If in the course of a lecture I stated an unsolved problem, the chances were he'd come to me at the end of the lecture with the complete solution scribbled on a slip of paper."

These were unsolved math problems -- unsolved to the entire field of mathematics that he was able to solve right after hearing them for the first time in class. The ability to do that is simply staggering.

Von Neumann went on to make so many contributions to so many fields that this would turn in to a huge post if I was to try to briefly mention them all. Some of the most notable was coming up with the von Neumann architecture on which virtually all modern computers are based, the central role he played in the development of the atomic bomb and the development and use of computers, the invention of cellular automata, and many, many others.

He was extremely highly regarded during his life for his intellect, and was enormously influential.

That's just one really obvious example, but you'll find many, many others. Einstein springs to mind as the quintessential intellectual superstar, as do Richard Feynman and Stephen Hawking. Socrates and Plato had a gigantic influence on virtually all of Western philosophy and through that on much of the modern and ancient world. Aristotle, a student of Plato, had an incredible influence on more fields of study than can easily be counted, and could arguably be one of the most influential people in history. He also tutored Alexander the Great, one of the greatest of all military conquerors. Diogenes got away with telling Alexander to get out of his light.

Many many people "3 standard deviations above the mean" (or more) have been eagerly sought out and highly rewarded. Michelangelo got to paint the Sistine Fucking Chapel. Newton and Leibniz created fucking calculus, and were both highly regarded and influential in their time and after. Voltaire influenced all of France and was hugely popular even in his life, as was Benjamin Franklin.

It's actually getting to be a little exhausting to do an adequate summary of the hugely influential brilliant people throughout history, and I think this post could go on for quite some time and not be nearly complete.

Yes, plenty of "geniuses" do get overlooked during their lifetimes, and many more will probably never be "discovered" or acknowledged even after they are dead. Van Gogh only sold one painting in his life, and that was to his brother. Many anti-intellectual regimes have deliberately committed mass murder of their intellectual classes, staged mass book burnings, etc. Many intelligent people are bullied as children, and as adults are persecuted for being too far ahead of their time, as Gallileo was. But many others are recognized and rewarded -- much more so than most "average" people will ever be.

As for the "Curse of Smart People", I'd rather live with my eyes open, as painful as that might be, than be lulled in pleasant slumber.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P%C3%B3lya

[3] - https://www.amazon.com/How-Solve-Mathematical-Princeton-Scie...

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#56

Perhaps "smart" is too un-nuanced by conflating the real performance of many types of intelligence areas (social, emotional, political, spatial, logical, etc.) into a singular narrow attribution based on brief interactions? (Also yet another example highlighting where language constrains thinking.) And therefore the overvaluing of maximizing possession of one strength at the detriment of avoiding complementary streng…

IMO "smart" is more of a social role than anything else. There's a specific sort of behavior that you have to do in order for people to think that you're "smart". Like, take George W. Bush for example - he's about two standard deviations above average in intelligence, but his public-facing persona lines up much better with "regular guy" and so people misunderestimate him.

You can find similar examples from all sorts of public figures - when you dig into them, there's way more there than their persona suggests. Kanye West, Lady Gaga, Marilyn Manson, Dolph Lundgren, and more.

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “smart people” I know are seldom bored, because they are constantly reading interesting books, are fascinated by an endless stream of ideas, can think about a number of hard problems anytime they like, and have the curiosity and empathy and enough basic knowledge to coax an information-rich conversation out of almost any interlocutor. YMMV.

I think boredom is just fatal for some smart people. Look at DFW writing The Pale King, a tome on boredom, before his suicide last decade. You occupy yourself to avoid going mad.

Or more recently Mark Fisher, who at least in one essay (to be honest, I've only read this so far but just bought another book; I'm much more familiar with DFW and agree with your analysis) suggests that depression is societal (https://theoccupiedtimes.org/?p=12841) and who killed himself.

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#58
"What I have learned, working here, is that smart, successful people are cursed. The curse is confidence."

Things to remember when smart people appear confident:

- the correlation between confidence and ability to actually "do" something can be low

- smart people can live in their heads

- smart people can overestimate their expertise in areas they may be familiar or ignorant of, equally

- street smarts can kick smart, smarts arse

A quick question I ask is, "Have you done this before?". I use this question to determine perceived verses actual smartness.

Here's an example of why you need to do this. Back in '10 I went on a 220km hike from 200 meters above sea level to 2,228 (about 7300ft). [0] I was with a mixed group of people, fit, smart and motivated. On the last day, mid point to the final destination, we took a photo at the summit of the highest point in Australia. Lots of smart people in that photo, PhDs, Masters students etc. By the end of the day, one suffered frost bite, three got lost and of the finishers who covered the entire distance, maybe 20% came away without some sort of injury. Why?

  "Have you done this before?"
A lot of smart people ^thought^ running and riding then walking 30+Km/day was easy. A lot didn't think going into an alpine area in early autumn would be cold. The PhD with blue lips who I marched off the coldest place in Australia wore jeans and jumper, had taken a 600ml container of water and no food. [1] The three who sparked a search, decided to take break in a hut, but not inform anybody. [2] Now nobody really got hurt or lost. But they could have, had luck not been on their side. Smartness breeds a certain type of arrogance that left unchecked, can get you into trouble quickly.

Time and time again I remind myself, depending on the circumstances, "street smarts" whip "smart smarts'" arse.

Reference

[0] @samh, "Australian Economist who lost bet will walk from Parliament to Mount Kosciousko" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1126054 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1126078

[1] At the top the wind was 50km/hr and in fog. https://flickr.com/photos/bootload/4603144874/in/album-72157...

[2] Tail-end charlie (me) also missed checking inside the hut. https://flickr.com/photos/bootload/4797709801/in/album-72157...

[3] https://flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/72157624081287855

[4] https://flickr.com/photos/bootload/sets/72157624081287855

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#59
post #7

My pet theory: much of 'gut feelings' and intuition boils down to having our internal black box predict the behavior of other people. When you are 'average', this often simplifies to reasoning about what you would do in the same circumstances, which is relatively easy. If you are 3 standard deviations out, you'll have to compensate that consciously, which is inaccurate and difficult and slow. This is like how UI desi…

> NormalPersonVM(pre-alpha)

I literally did a spit-take when I read that. Is there a proper term for that cognitive routine?

Re: The Curse of Smart People (2014)

#60
> Working at a large, successful company lets you keep your isolation. If you choose, you can just ignore all the inconvenient facts about the world.

Is this why social justice extremism is so popular in Silicon Valley? I mean, social justice is critical to a well-functioning and fair society, but the brand of it that SV folks tend to sell is fairly detached from the realities of living in a human civilization.

Post reply on HN