9 ms·
On Being Smart (2009) [pdf]
- tome 11y ago> `The brain is ultimately just a muscle. Make it stronger by working it out.' I like the analogy that things are "muscles". It concisely captures various phenomena that I've observed: the brain is a muscle, willpower is a muscle, trust (in another person) is a muscle ...
- yetanotheracc 11y agoThe army is a muscle.
- agumonkey 11y agoEven more ultimately, muscles are brains.
- personjerry 11y agoWe see so much of the smart vs hard work argument. It seems heavily biased towards the argument of hard work. But, I wonder if there a way to quantify and measure so that we might be able to get an objective argument?
- calibraxis 11y agoAs a concept, "intelligence" bundles together a huuge number of concepts. In my programming job, at different times I apparently must use different parts of this bundle to be effective; using useful parts at the wrong times can lower my effectiveness. And a lot of it is sensitive to social context. In a culture which prioritizes ads over immortality research, massive intellectual potential is unrealized because bullshit jobs are alienating. Would you work harder to serve banner ads (which you likely block), or cheat death and usher a new era of human civilization? (http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/)
- geomark 11y agoI like that. But he says a couple of dumb things. Like "It’s not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, ..." Sure, some of those jobs do seem to add no value. But be careful what you include in a BS jobs list, because if you understand why insurance is important then you might realize that actuaries do something kind of important. And then there's this "...success mobilizing resentment against school teachers, or auto workers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or auto industry managers who actually cause the problems)..." because if those bad managers and administrators would just keep giving bigger raises the unions wouldn't have to shut down businesses and schools.
- eli_gottlieb 11y agoGraeber included a standard for bullshit in the article: does the worker feel like their job is bullshit, knowing what they do and what the output is?
- geomark 11y agoAh yes. So actuaries feel like their jobs are BS even though they are sort of important. Oh well.
- chrisdone 11y agoThe bias is understandable, though. People things are good at are the result of practice from birth, whether conscious or not. Basic neuroscience tells us that. The few people I know who I would consider geniuses in the true sense of the word (prolific, intense, profound, dominating) are constantly working and constantly thinking. This article ironically notes Mozart as an anomaly, but is well known to have considered himself a hard, practical worker, unlike the "random flashes of genius" myth perpetuated by those who came after him.
- shas3 11y agoI am pretty sure psychologists, etc. everywhere are working on this problem! You cannot publish work if you cannot find ways of quantifying these! An example I'm aware of is, Angela Duckworth at U Penn who studies 'grit' https://sites.sas.upenn.edu/duckworth/pages/research https://sites.sas.upenn.edu/duckworth/pages/research
- danieltillett 11y agoI actually don't think the divide is between smartness and hard work, it is between smartness and originality. Originality is the wedge and hard work is the sledge hammer. All smartness provides is a torch to find the wedge in the darkness of our ignorance.
- vzcx 11y agoThis is actually closer to what Grothendieck writes in Recoltes et Semailles: "Yet it is not these gifts, nor the most determined ambition combined with irresistible will-power, that enables one to surmount the "invisible yet formidable boundaries" that encircle our universe. Only innocence can surmount them, which mere knowledge doesn't even take into account, in those moments when we find ourselves able to listen to things, totally and intensely absorbed in child play." http://www.fermentmagazine.org/rands/promenade11.html http://www.fermentmagazine.org/rands/promenade11.html
- delish 11y agoWow! I've been looking for an english translation of Recoltes et Semailles for a while. I see now it's easily reachable by google (oops), but still, thanks!
- ky3 11y agore: Only innocence can surmount them ... when we find ourselves able to listen to things, totally and intensely absorbed in child play. — Grothendieck Apropos is something another Frenchman once said: "Talent is long patience, and originality an effort of will and of intense observation." — Flaubert
- loblollyboy 11y agoWell said. Similar to work smart not hard. Here's one - "don't work hard, be smart"
- tatx 11y agoGreat metaphor, but I think smartness is something even lesser than a torch. Creativity, it seems, is the torch that helps you find the right wedge. Smartness is probably what tells you to look for a wedge in the first place.
- octatoan 11y agoI posted this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10539083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10539083 It seems timezones matter a lot. :)
- gypsy_boots 11y agoIf you haven't already seen it, here's an interesting article about ideal times to post to HN: http://silverman.svbtle.com/the-best-time-to-post-on-hacker-news http://silverman.svbtle.com/the-best-time-to-post-on-hacker-...
- fengwick3 11y agoOne must be careful of conflating the distinct effects of expectations of intelligence and intelligence itself. The former exerts psychological pressure[0], the latter is a catalyst for success. It's often possible to have one without another. [0] http://web.stanford.edu/dept/CTL/cgi-bin/academicskillscoaching/why-does-the-duck-stop-here/ http://web.stanford.edu/dept/CTL/cgi-bin/academicskillscoach...
- vlehto 11y agoAccording to Dunning-Kruger effect, and expert should consider his accomplishments trivial in hindsight. Grothendieck and Gauss were mathematicians, not psychologists. It's likely that the predicate of the article is then completely wrong. Then there is also the impostor syndrome, many students are likely to feel not smart enough. And then there is the cultural taboo around smartness. Taking pride in ones ability is socially accepted as long as that ability is not intellectual. So in a way idea like this turns into twisted logic: "I'm smart, my laziness in college shows it." And now you get to do that sweet guilt tripping for feeling too smart. There is difference between pride and arrogance. So this self deprecation seems bit needless. What if we don't consider pride as a sin, but as natural phenomena in range of human emotion. Maybe pride is inevitable for ego? Now if that is true, what should a good student to be proud of? What if being openly proud of your intellect is healthy after all?
- rifung 11y agoWhy would an expert consider his/her accomplishments trivial? I thought that Dunning Kruger just implied people who aren't good think they are much better than they are, but people who are experts would already know they are better than most.
- slavik81 11y agoImpostor Syndrome may be a better fit for that than Dunning Kruger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tbrownaw 11y agoAccording to Dunning-Kruger effect, and expert should consider his accomplishments trivial in hindsight. All of the graphs in that paper still showed a positive correlation between actual and self-perceived skill. Self-perception was just compressed into the range of around 50% to around 75%, instead of the full 0% to 100% of their measurement scale.
- davidiach 11y agoIt's funny how it seems that only really smart people do the hard work required for winning Nobel Prizes, Fields Medals and other such distinctions. Average people are just lazy, that's why they don't succeed!
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- RivieraKid 11y agoWhat do you think is the difference between a 130 IQ and a 160 IQ person?
- noir_lord 11y agoAbout 30 IQ points ;). Some studies showed that beyond 130 the benefits of a high IQ plateaued and that's assuming you put much faith in IQ scores which I don't since I know roughly where I fall on the spectrum and I know my score and my score says I'm considerably smarter than I actually am :).
- MagnumOpus 11y agoSome studies can't demonstrate differences beyond 130 (which is different from showing that they don't exist). Most studies, however, show that these differences still matter. Look for papers from the "Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth" dataset, in particular "Ability Differences Among People Who Have Commensurate Degrees Matter for Scientific Creativity" by Park, Lubinski, and Benbow. It shows a very strong correlation [1] between IQ/SAT scores and numbers of patents/PhD/science publications even among people in the top 1 percentile of the SAT-M - i.e. roughly IQ 135 or more. (This is even more significant given how imprecise the SAT is as a measurement tool at the edges of the bell curve.) [1]: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/10/957/F1.large.jpg http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/10/957/F1.large.jpg
- zhte415 11y ago30 I once did an IQ test. The result was 138. The test was online, selling something, back in the late 1990s. I've refused to do one again - what's the point? - that test made me feel sufficiently happy. There are more tangible 'qualifications / achievements' I'd prefer to focus on personally than what combination of squares and circles follows in the sequence (this did remind me of 1st year Analysis - is the series converging or is it not; dum-de-dum, drum roll). And if I was presented with an IQ test on a CV (never have been) it would be instantly dismissed (the 'qualification / achievement', not the candidate).
- RivieraKid 11y agoI think that a large part of it are psychological / personality factors - how much pleasure do you find in thinking, learning new things, solving problems.
- mbrock 11y agoAlso, what's valued by your social group, what kind of intellectual environment do you inhabit, and so on. Generally one could imagine a massive neural network and consider how effectively it's being trained... and how it's then being put to use. If you have 10% more neurons, that's cool, you might have more potential in the way that an elite bodybuilder probably has advantageous genetic factors for muscle growth or whatever. But it should reasonably be far from the dominating factor.
- dan00 11y agoFear takes every kind of pleasure. So the fear of not looking smart, not feeling smart, might be already enough to dislike certain kind of things. But there's certainly also a difference in people without fear - like you said - how much they get a "kick" from learning new things.
- vlehto 11y agoI'd claim the fear can be just irrational. Maybe learned behavior, you we afraid of doing homework once. The next time you remember that experience and it becomes grueling experience. After some time you have learned to fear, but there is not really anything you are afraid off. Or there is, but you don't know it. Humans are really good at inventing explanations for their feelings and believing those explanations. I think just acknowledging that it's fear is good first step.
- gypsy_boots 11y ago> The brain is ultimately just a muscle. Make it stronger by working it out This seems like such an empowering way to look at learning, and one I think many of us are prone to forget. Even masters don't just arrive at their talent, they too have to work at it, over and over, day after day.
- henrikeh 11y agoIt is, however, also ultimately wrong to state the brain is "just a muscle". In "Make it stick" they mention some research into this aspect: practice of a specific mental skill has little influence on other mental skills. As with all analogies it should not be taken too far.
- gypsy_boots 11y agoAgreed, maybe it would be more clear to take out "just" and emphasize that the brain is a muscle. > practice of a specific mental skill has little influence on other mental skills Care to elaborate on this? I'm trying to imagine what you mean here.
- purpled_haze 11y ago> emphasize that the brain is a muscle. Instead, maybe emphasize that the brain is similar to a muscle. Speaking metaphorically could be confusing to some.
- vdnkh 11y ago>practice of a specific mental skill has little influence on other mental skills I disagree. Take reading, for example. Does reading not make you a better writer?
- rifung 11y agoWhile the article was interesting, I wonder if the 50% of dropouts is really caused by people feeling like they are not smart enough. I've met quite a few people who dropped out of good PhD programs, but most of them dropped out because they felt like they weren't in love with research and didn't think it made sense over going into industry and making a lot more money. I met one person who got into a top 10 program but never intended to finish his PhD; he just wanted to get a free Master's. On the other hand I also have heard from many that grad school is the first time many students have to see a therapist and deal with depression.
- tempodox 11y agoThis broadcasts an encouraging message. While I still think actual success depends on a good deal of sheer luck, we needn't despair because we're missing some irreplaceable gift. Even in this respect, all humans are created equal.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- rdlecler1 11y agoI had the good fortune of having dyslexia and ADD before they tested these kinds of things, and eventually went on to become a high school dropout. Ultimately I went to university, got five degrees including a PhD from Yale. I published two papers in Nature journals now cited together over 250 times. One, a single author paper, overturned 10 years of high profile theory and originally caused a falling out with my advisor, a MacArthur fellow and one of the giants of Yale. Having grown up never feeling smart I was always intellectually humble and assumed I was wrong. I found my new theoretical discovery because I noticed an anomaly -- apparently others had encountered before, but swept it under the carpet. I on the other hand assumed I must have done something wrong and so I kept digging until I Worked out the answer. If you're too smart you can also be too confident in your own abilities to extrapolate and interpolate.
- kalms 11y agoI of course don't know you, and neither am I able to verify your story, but kudos to you for overcoming that! It also sounds a bit like impostor syndrome.
- rdlecler1 11y agoNo, I just know where I rank in the scheme of things. I have a bunch of friends from CalTech who blow my mind. When you go to a place like Yale (or Google, or even SF) you may have been in the top 2-5 percentile before but you're average in places like that. That said, not all of my brilliant CalTech friends are wildly successful. While one is a Director at SpaceX working on their new hydrogen engine, another is doing back office work for a second tier financial firm. But to make it to the top you need to have both determination and the right set of other skills.
- triplesec 11y agoYet, you seem to be speaking based upon assumptions almost opposite to the OP article. It's your hard work, not brilliant 'faster than everyone else' cleverness, and your determination which make for your success. See what all the guys, Einstein included, said about this. If you want, I bet you can go back to Academia and excel. I know academia well and had a bad experience too, but you have more than enough ammo to succeed. And I have a bunch of the smartest Caltech friends, and my SF tribes mean that I'm never the smartest person in the room, and that's amazing. Still, there are things I can do, and ways I think, because of the reading and work I have done, which none of them can. You have your place, should you want it!
- ahussain 11y agoA physics professor in college used to say "learning is a spiral" - you go around and around a concept a few times, getting closer to understanding each time. I quite liked that as a model for learning - don't get demoralized if you don't hit the target on the first pass.
- cmrdporcupine 11y agoAll my life I heard from people "you're so smart, you have so much potential, but you need to try" while I failed through school due to challenges focusing, and, frankly, giving a shit. In the end, I carried this "you're so smart, but" attitude around with me to both my benefit and detriment. I have no CS degree but have elbowed my way (often with a distinct lack of grace, in retrospect) into the industry as a software developer. I now somehow work at a place that prides itself on intense meritocracy, famous for its grueling elitist interviews .... and the impostor syndrome is intense. But when I look around, most of the people around me do not seem so much 'more intelligent' as 'more adapted for the school-grades / work-politics system' which the interview process / promo process selects for. To me intelligence and smartness are clearly cultural phenomenon. Yes some people are more adapted to certain types of intellectual activity, but whether those things are 'smart' or not is questionable to me. As a parent I often get frustrated with myself when I instinctually reward my children with comments like "you're so smart". Unfortunately they struggle with focusing, behavioural compliance, etc. in similar ways to me, while their intellectual and artistic curiosity is intense -- I know they have a long uphill battle ahead of them.
- cmrdporcupine 11y agoI should add that one of the most frustrating things for me is to stand in the microkitchen at work and listen to the (overwhelmingly male, white, middle class background) engineering/CS grads around me bitch about garbage worker strikes or unions in general, while they snack on organic chocolate and pat themselves on the back for having run the gauntlet of HS/university/interview-process. To me, the world of unskilled labour and precarious employment seems only a mis-step or two away...
- vasilipupkin 11y agoit's possible, but let's not ignore the heritable / family aspect of this. In my family noone has done unskilled labor going back to 19th century at least and possibly earlier. So it's fair to say I am not in danger of that. But I agree with your point that a bit of compassion from those more fortunate wouldn't hurt
- Sealy 11y agoThis looks like a re-hash of the findings published in a 2008 book by Malcolm Gladwell called "Outliers - The Story of Success". He's the one that made the 10,000 hour theory popular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book) Its a #1 Best-Seller on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0141036257/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447248863&sr=8-1&keywords=malcolm+gladwell+outliers http://www.amazon.co.uk/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladw...
- iMark 11y agoThere's a lot here that resonates with me beyond matters of intelligence. In my spare time I'm a contact juggler. If you don't know what that it is, it involves rolling balls around the body. David Bowie in Labyrinth is usually a good reference point. And I'm good at it. I'm good at it because I've been doing it for nearly a decade and I've put in the hours. I don't think I learned particularly quickly, or even particularly well, but I stuck with it and worked hard to improve. I'm not shy about telling people that, but many still seem to assume it's some form of innate talent, no matter how much I reassure them otherwise. It's as though people would rather accept their own status quos rather than believe that effort and commitment is enough to improve their lot. Yes, it might take years to reach a level of skill in a given discipline, but those years will pass anyway. Wouldn't it be nice to have something more to show for all that time than a depression on the sofa in front of the tv?
- visakanv 11y agoThat's consistent with my experience as a musician. I'm no prodigy. I don't have a musican background. When I started out, I couldn't sing in tune and I couldn't clap in time. All I did was dick around on the guitar on and off for over a decade. I've gotten pretty good at it just by sucking at it for a long time, and reducing the suckage one little bit at a time. Professional musicians simply do the same thing, but far more intensively, rigorously, systematically. Hours and hours of practice day after week after month after year. I once transcribed a post I read about this called The Mundanity of Excellence, by Daniel Chambliss: http://www.visakanv.com/blog/2014/01/the-mundanity-of-excellence-by-daniel-chambliss/ http://www.visakanv.com/blog/2014/01/the-mundanity-of-excell... EDIT: Also, to be fair, I think what stops a lot of people is– when they start out, they really suck, and they simply can't envision the path from sucking to being good. Because it involves many qualitative transformations. The mythologizing we do of successful people doesn't help. We get told this story about how all the people at the top one day discovered that they loved something so much that they wanted to work on it really hard forever. If this narrative changed, I think more people would get good at more things.
- iMark 11y agoThe learning period is a good point. Contact juggling has a rather cliff-like learning curve and many people don't progress because of it. A supportive environment makes a world of difference. I hsf people around early on to who offered constructive advice and encouragement and that made all the difference.
- ph33r 11y agoThe best thing I've ever read online about 'being smart' came from a Reddit comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/confession/comments/nxdzz/im_not_as_smart_as_i_thought_i_was/c3d91jl https://www.reddit.com/r/confession/comments/nxdzz/im_not_as...
- Nimitz14 11y agoThat was good. Thanks for the link.
- Sealy 11y agoI second that, thanks for the share ph33r. The story highlights that 'smartness' is linked more to a learning mentality then actually knowing a lot of things. Humility. Similarly to the study shared in the OP, if you tell yourself that you are good at something, you are less likely to try hard, thats when you'll fall behind. I read a book that shared a story like this recently, 'David and Goliath' by Malcolm Gladwell.
- baby 11y agoI liked that as well > And I put that in quotes because "smart" is really just a way of saying "has invested so much time and sweat that you make it look effortless." When you look up at smart people that have succeeded in their career. It's certainly because they worked so hard to get there. I've learned a lot about that reading another book of Gladwell, "The Outliers". Which is one of my favorite book. One of the story is about a genius who is still living in his mom's basement because he lacks the social traits of other successful intelligent people. I think I will check your "David and Goliath" book. Also, from the reddit comment, what I got is that he reached out. He asked for help around. Most things are hard to learn by yourself, and if not a book, people around you are the most likely to help. It helps being humble, when asking for help.
- JamesBarney 11y agoWhile this is a good read. I think what differentiates the top 5% of the bell curve(people at MIT) in terms of success is probably different from what differentiates the rest of the bell curve. For instance what accounts for the variation in play between a bunch of 7 foot tall basketball players is not what separates them from a gentleman of 5'5. Most research backs this up. The gap in achievement between an IQ of 115->130 is far large than 145->160.
- refrigerator 11y agoI've read similar things before, and totally agree with them, but surely 'the ability to work hard and persevere' varies a lot from person to person according to genetics and environmental factors?
- myth_buster 11y agoAs opposed to genetic mutation that begets Intelligence, will power (ability to work hard and persevere) could perhaps be developed.
- kamaal 11y agoTo persevere is not a static unchanging quantity in itself. Its something you build over time. You start with the bare minimum, and it gets stronger with every failure. If you look Usain Bolt and think I could never undergo such a brutal training regime, you must know Usain Bolt couldn't either. It takes a lot of tiny little failures to build that kind of mental stamina.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago"Ignorance is bliss." The older I get, the more wise I get, the more I believe in the above statement. As in, not having the mental capacity or brain-power to muse over inequities both in personal and worldly topics is a less emotionally affective position to be in. I grew up in a protestant Christian faith, and while I don't actively participate, I do reflect often on some of the teachings (mostly the Beatitudes) and literature, and only in my 20s did I realize that "Eating the apple from the tree of life" is pretty much a metaphor for our evolutionary development into consciousness, of "knowing right and wrong" as a species. Intelligence? It's a curse as much as it is a blessing. Folks can disagree with that assertion if they'd like. From my personal studies in literature and philosophy though, I think it's a pretty common understanding amongst a certain tier of thinkers. My apology if I come off sounding a little elitist, but intelligence is a bell curve, and, to quote the famous Demotivational poster, "Not everybody gets to be an astronaut when they grow up."[0] [0]Link to photo I found via Google search: http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/potentialdemotivator.jpeg?v=1414017238 http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/potentia...
- DarkTree 11y agoI will say too, that as I got older I bit more and more into "Ignorance is bliss" being a true statement. Knowing both good and bad results in many emotional responses. The problem is that emotional responses, when they are negative, are often perceived as bad. However, the past couple of years I've begun to flip that assertion by maintaining the idea that any emotion perceived is beneficial, valuable, and makes you feel alive. Feeling alive, in my opinion, is one of those ultimate gifts that a human can have. My conclusion is that, while ignorance is bliss, I would much rather feel both the power and beauty of the spectrum of emotional responses. They are equally valuable and enlightening.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoVery nice insight, and I thank you for sharing. As a musician and writer, I've never really shied away from dealing with emotions, as they can influence so much in 'tone' (in the case of sound) or 'behavior' (in the case of fictional characters). You're right about emotions being valuable and enlightening, that's a nice way of putting it. Upon reflection, I think maybe what I was striving to convey is that even as a smart person, a caring person, and with time to think things through, there's still the reality of life to confront - as in, thought and good will alone can't change the world for the better. It's difficult trying to 'fight the good fight' (in whatever form it may be - daily social interactions, actions with consequences, etc), and honestly, not very rewarding in a practical sense. I guess it's the burden for some to be borne many years after they're born!
- nether 11y agoWhat I've noticed is that hard work doesn't bear the same fruit for everyone. I worked my ass off in university. I knew others who did too, but they accomplished far more with fewer mistakes. I've also met people who were dedicated in their studies and just seemed to hit the wall with grasping some concepts in math. It was really painful to see this, they weren't lazy or unmotivated, but they often had understanding that fell short of their enthusiasm. It's not just "hard work." Innate talent exists that cannot be compensated by effort, optimistic mindset etc.
- mekal 11y agoagreed. take tesla for example: "“Before I put a sketch on paper, the whole idea is worked out mentally. In my mind I change the construction, make improvements, and even operate the device. Without ever having drawn a sketch I can give the measurements of all parts to workmen, and when completed all these parts will fit, just as certainly as though I had made the actual drawings. It is immaterial to me whether I run my machine in my mind or test it in my shop." i'm betting practice/hard work didn't give him that ability. could you imagine trying to compete with him in school? good luck.
- kamaal 11y agoOne more important thing to notice is, the illusion of 'smart', 'evil genius' or 'magic' appears from the fact that beyond a point of learning your skills grow exponentially in proportion to your practice/work. The initial grunt work, which is boring, tiring and mentally exhausting without offering much results is a right of passage you need to take reach those levels. I've had this repeatedly told to me about how some person who was an perceived an idiot/slow mover has now suddenly become very talented, achieved much or gotten rich. Oh well, that's because all exponential curves look dead until they actually start to rise, and from there on they indeed look magical in their output.
- andersonfreitas 11y ago"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer". Albert Einstein
- mlpinit 11y agoThere's a book called "Thinking, Fast and Slow" that mentions some of the concepts covered here.