7 ms·

That Sounds Smart

71 points by rsaarelm 16y ago

wmwong 16y ago
This definitely is a bit over-generalized, but I think it makes some good points. One of the things I admire most about a few of the smartest people I have met is their ability to explain things in a very simple way. Furthermore, they are able to break down problems into very simple solutions. I definitely have troubles with doing this. Many of my solutions are complex. With quite a lot of effort, I am able to simplify the solution bit by bit, but when I talk to one of these people, their solutions blow me away. I always walk away saying to myself, "Why didn't I think of that? It's so simple!". I hope it's practice, and if I get enough, I'll someday be able to do what they do.
- yewweitan 16y ago
  Depends on the discipline though. Hacking will never be communicated accurately to non-hackers in the same way that jazz will never sound right to the non-musician. I do agree that good communicators manage to somehow frame their thoughts in a way that encourages other people to think a little further, and realise some truth that was staring them in the face. After all, peotry is about making new things familar and familar things new. It's unfortunate that great communication is largely unscalable (and hence the reason why YC exists).
pmccool 16y ago
I agree, mostly. Being smart and being good at explaining aren't the same thing, though. They may often go together, but it isn't necessarily the case.
- lotharbot 16y ago
  People who are good at explaining are almost always smart, but a lot of smart people have trouble explaining things. One common problem is smart people assuming a certain level of background knowledge, and therefore referencing concepts or using terminology that's not familiar to their audience. It takes some experience to really figure out what vocabulary is appropriate for a particular audience. I've worked with a lot of fourth graders (10-11 years old). I've seen a lot of people try to explain concepts to them and fail, sometimes because they're using sixth grade vocabulary the kids can't follow, and sometimes because they're using first grade vocabulary and overexplaining things and the kids get bored. It takes practice to explain things at exactly the right level for the audience -- it takes a teacher who is both smart (having mastery of the material) and experienced (knowing what level of complexity is audience-appropriate.)
  - chegra 16y ago
    I remember, I used to be penalized in A'levels if I didn't give examples and analogies when I was explaining a concept. Actually the lecturer never gave any points for technical explanation. But this sort of learning came in handy years later when trying to explain the research I'm doing to my boss and people around me. I just think it is a skill that can be learned.
- random42 16y ago
  I came here to post "the exact same" comment. The assumption of smart people being good at communicating the explanation very well, is not necessarily true. In my personal experience, two of the most smart people, I have come across are basically not the best in communicating. They are so sharp, that thing obvious to them, are not obvious to most of the people. However, for most people, I find the observation to be correct.
rokhayakebe 16y ago
One thing I have noticed is people who do not seem smart to me are always quick to remind you of how smarter than other people they are.
JustAGeek 16y ago
This is actually my own test of whether or not I've really grokked something: If I can't explain it to someone such that she understands it as well, I haven't really understood that something.
thunk 16y ago
> But the larger consequence is that if you’re smart the world doesn’t seem very complicated. This might seem obvious, but the obvious thought is rather different. The obvious thought is: The world doesn’t seem complicated to smart people. But this isn’t what smart people actually think. They think the world isn’t complicated, period. Woah, woah, woah. "The world" is a very large thing indeed. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think "it isn't complicated, period." Simplifying insight is often hard won. And some things are just irreducibly complex. To think otherwise smells like Dunning-Krueger.
- LaPingvino 16y ago
  Give me an example of an irreducibly complex thing :)
  - Estragon 16y ago
    You.
    - getonit 16y ago
      Fail, please refer to Evolution.
      - Symmetry 16y ago
        Evolution is just a way of explaining how someone came to be, not how they work. Being a good materialist I do think that people are reducible, but we certainly haven't been able to figure all of the steps out yet.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - ovi256 16y ago
    * The Belgian question. * Quantum mechanics. * The sovereign debt problem.
  - pwhelan 16y ago
fforw 16y ago
> [Smart people] think the world isn’t complicated, period. um.. what!? The world is a complicated mess in just about every aspect except in those axiomatic systems we developed to create simplified models -- but the map is not the territory. The world is by far larger than those specialized areas we're good at.
- davidw 16y ago
  "As the circle of light increases, so does the circumference of darkness around it." -- Albert Einstein
- pmccool 16y ago
  Sure, but I think that there was an implicit assumption that the person under consideration was explaining something within their area of expertise. Otherwise the article would be claiming that a smart person can explain anything simply, which amounts to equating "smart" with "omniscient". The other assumption I made about the article was that it was discussing a useful heuristic, not a 100% reliable test. The inherent complexity of the world is one of the things that can make it give the wrong result, but not the only one.
  - gloob 16y ago
    Perhaps that is true, but I feel that if the blogger really understood what he was talking about, he would have been able to phrase it in a way that wouldn't cause any confusion. ;)
allend 16y ago
Honest question: how many people here actually think they are dumber than the average person?
- Eliezer 16y ago
  I think I'm dumber than a randomly selected sentient being (from the entirety of space and time).
  - donaq 16y ago
    What probability would you assign to that statement being true?
- random42 16y ago
  I am dumb. (Not even relatively to average person, even in absolute measure)
- getonit 16y ago
  On average, no. In random scenarios, frequently.
- nollidge 16y ago
  What do you mean by "dumber"?
- fgf 16y ago
  If we by dumb mean having a low IQ (and/or other correlated qualities) I think very few hacker news readers are under average.
Confusion 16y ago
People who truly understand their subject should have no trouble writing for a popular audience. This is false for at least two reasons. 1) People who truly understand their subject know they can't write for a popular audience without handwaving, partial truths and actually getting the complexity of the subject across. They may not want to write in that way. 2) The ability to 'think like a layman', properly estimate their background and slowly build up a story that they can follow without getting lost is a skill entirely different from 'knowing your subject'. It is prepostorous to suppose every intelligent person has that skill. It's a typical case where a lot of people mistake intelligence for skill and it's insulting to (technical) writers that have actually put effort into learning how to write. All in all, I doubt whether 10% of all people that 'truly understand their subject' can write for a popular audience.
- DavidMcLaughlin 16y ago
  Right. I like the sentiment of the post but it's definitely not a black and white case of: 1) You are stupid if you are hard to understand 2) You are smart if you are easy to understand They say the best teachers and coaches (i.e. the ones which are easiest to understand) are the ones who had to work the hardest to find success in their craft. Conversely, the most naturally gifted of people sometimes don't understand how amazing what they take for granted is and can't pass on this knowledge. There is also a lot of real world contradictions to this (I'm thinking sports here) so yes, there are a lot of shades of grey.
- Estragon 16y ago
  Yes, there are so many fallacies in that essay. It shows another way to pretend that you're smart: appeal to your audience's vanity by suggesting that you share a rare resistance to manipulation by intellectual intimidation.
  - SiVal 16y ago
    Another fallacy is that smart people are more likely to be found behind profanity-laced rants. In my experience, people resort to vulgarity as a gimmick intended to convey a message that isn't adequately conveyed by their content itself. The emotional, gimmicky nature of it is the reason that it tends to be negatively correlated with logical quality.
cracki 16y ago
> Smart writing [...] in the profanity-laced angry rants you’ll find on someone’s blog. I'm thinking of Zed Shaw.
philk 16y ago
I think he's conflating "smart"[1] and "good at communicating". [1] In fact "smart" should probably be restricted based on domain. You can be a brilliant violin player but that doesn't mean you'll be a brilliant molecular biologist.
- dagw 16y ago
  I think you're conflating "smart" with "brilliant". I know several very smart people who aren't particularly brilliant at anything, and a couple who are brilliant at their domain, but really cannot be described as smart.
  - philk 16y ago
    If they aren't particularly good at anything, how do you know that they're smart? They could merely sound smart to you because they seem (for example) articulate and hold similar opinions.
    - dagw 16y ago
      They're very good at many things, just not brilliant at any. They have fairly deep knowledge in a very wide variety of fields, they can grasp new concepts easily, they can quickly construct and understand both sound and intelligent arguments and are generally all round very intelligent people. They've simply taken a more jack of all trades approach to things, rather than focusing on becoming brilliant at something.
stcredzero 16y ago
From article: But the larger consequence is that if you’re smart the world doesn’t seem very complicated This is only for the part of reality designed by humans. Other parts of it are complicated. Not realizing this is a sign of ignorance.
donaq 16y ago
if you genuinely understand something — really, truly understand it — then it doesn’t seem complicated and you can explain it rather simply Uh, no? Some things are inherently complex. Try explaining how the Y combinator works (not what it does - why it works) to a layman in simple terms. I don't think it can be done.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  OK, let's try. I think it can be done in 40 minutes, one hour tops. 15 minutes to explain what a function is: f1 : ℝ -> ℝ f1 = x |-> a × x + b f2 : (ℝ × ℝ) -> ℝ f2 = (x, y) |-> x + y - 1 f3 : ℝ -> ℝ -> ℝ f3 = (x, y) |-> x + y - 1 (I fear curryfication can't be skipped) f4 : (ℝ -> ℝ) -> ℝ -> ℝ f4 = f |-> x |-> f(x) f5 : ∀ a, ∀ b, (a -> b) -> a -> b f5 = f |-> x |-> f(x) (Polymorphic types may be left out, but I think they're important) Then 5 minutes to explain what a recursive function is: fac : ℕ -> ℕ fac = 0 |-> 1 x |-> x × fac(x - 1) Then 5 minutes to present a fix point combinator… fix : ∀ a, (a -> a) -> a fix = f |-> f (fix f) (or we could just say that a is ℕ) …and implement the factorial with it. ffac : (ℕ -> ℕ) -> ℕ -> ℕ ffac = f |-> 0 |-> 1 f |-> x |-> x × (f(x - 1)) fac : ℕ -> ℕ fac = fix(fac) We can do a step by step, normal order evaluation. If any question is asked, just say that evaluating the arguments first just won't work here. Then, maybe 5 more minutes to explain the concept of self reference without actually naming oneself: ~PM(~P) Where you assume that for any "printable" string X, PX is true, ~PX is false; that for any X such that XM(X) is printable, PM(X) is true; and that any printable string is true, or just don't have the form PX or ~PX. You will note that ~PM(~P) is true and not printable, because it basically says "I am not printable". This is an anonymous self reference. Finally, we can go on and present the Y combinator itself. It does the same thing as the "fix" combinator, we just have to show that's because there is an anonymous self reference somewhere. I think it can be done in 10 minutes. Phew. Done. And I didn't use any knowledge that a high school kid shouldn't have. Did I miss something?
  - bhousel 16y ago
    > Did I miss something? Just the part about explaining it to a layman in simple terms..
lhnz 16y ago
I think the author is just projecting. 1. There are plenty of smart people that are bad communicators. 2. Life is compicated and if you can't see the complexity you probably suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
coffeemug 16y ago
But, I suspect, for most people the world is a strange and mysterious place, governed by principles they do not understand, which affect them severely but cannot be controlled, only coped with as best as possible. The world is a strange and mysterious place, governed by principles we do not understand, which affect us severely but cannot be controlled, only coped with as best as possible. People that think otherwise might not be as smart as they consider themselves to be. I do agree with the overall point. Jargon can be used to simplify communication by using a language all parties understand, or to mask the fact that the speaker has no idea what they're talking about. But I take issue with the argument that everything can be described in a simple way. To quote Feynman, "If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize".
Tichy 16y ago
If somebody convinced my that the world isn't complicated, it would trigger a couple of warning flags of their own. Most likely, they fooled me.
miguelpais 16y ago
The good point I think the article makes before generalizing about smart people's qualities is the fact that in many cases, such as argument, there are people who will toss some concepts, jargon or ideas without fully understanding them and because of that can look to an outsider (maybe your boss) like they won the argument. Of course, if the other person in the conversation is really into that concept, jargon or idea he can quickly point out its flaws. But what is most likely to happen is for the other guy to have to make some effort to remember what that concept was and having to put the pieces together. When he can actually identify what was wrong in the argument, the battle will be long gone and lost. Meanwhile the other guy may have made his opinion prevail and gain something because of it.
goodside 16y ago
If you refuse to learn anything that isn't explained in a jargon-free blog post, the world will seem devoid of anything that can't be.
travem 16y ago
"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong."
theorique 16y ago
Smart writing won’t be in formal and difficult-to-understand journal articles, but in the profanity-laced angry rants you’ll find on someone’s blog. That’s where the smart people are, even if everybody else just thinks they’re dumb. The trouble with this principle is, by Sturgeon's law, you are forced to sift through the 90+% of profanity-laced angry rants that aren't worth anything to find the few that are actually worthwhile.
getonit 16y ago
You are smart if: you realise that formulating smartness is not smart. Bugger.
j_baker 16y ago
"Smart people actually say things that are very simple and easy to understand. And the smarter they are, the more clear what they say is. It’s stupid people who say things that are hard to understand." This is just one of those ideas that is good in theory, but simply isn't in line with reality. A smart person can make things as simple as possible, but they're not magic. You can't take a complex idea and magically make it simple.
fgf 16y ago
Posted by me in his comments section: "The feeling of understanding can, however, be deceptive. There are lot’s of high IQ, well read and honest (as in not consciously trying to mislead) people who disagree about solutions to problems they both feel they understand and have easily explained (tough often differing) mental models of. The issue of vouchers in the first comment is a good example. The “brighter” person does not seem to realize that the greatest benefit of vouchers (according to some, including me) is that they will give an incentive to innovation. This is something that cannot be adequately tested for in small controlled experiments. Your heuristic is great for detecting nonsense but it can’t help you find truth." PS. I'm not discussing vouchers today.
ra88it 16y ago
There are two ways to seem smart: 1) Over-complicate everything. 2) Over-simplify everything. Aaron's essay describes the former. It, and this comment, are examples of the latter.

71 points by rsaarelm 16y ago

This definitely is a bit over-generalized, but I think it makes some good points. One of the things I admire most about a few of the smartest people I have met is their ability to explain things in a very simple way. Furthermore, they are able to break down problems into very simple solutions. I definitely have troubles with doing this. Many of my solutions are complex. With quite a lot of effort, I am able to simplify the solution bit by bit, but when I talk to one of these people, their solutions blow me away. I always walk away saying to myself, "Why didn't I think of that? It's so simple!". I hope it's practice, and if I get enough, I'll someday be able to do what they do.

yewweitan 16y ago
Depends on the discipline though. Hacking will never be communicated accurately to non-hackers in the same way that jazz will never sound right to the non-musician. I do agree that good communicators manage to somehow frame their thoughts in a way that encourages other people to think a little further, and realise some truth that was staring them in the face. After all, peotry is about making new things familar and familar things new. It's unfortunate that great communication is largely unscalable (and hence the reason why YC exists).

pmccool 16y ago

I agree, mostly. Being smart and being good at explaining aren't the same thing, though. They may often go together, but it isn't necessarily the case.

lotharbot 16y ago
People who are good at explaining are almost always smart, but a lot of smart people have trouble explaining things. One common problem is smart people assuming a certain level of background knowledge, and therefore referencing concepts or using terminology that's not familiar to their audience. It takes some experience to really figure out what vocabulary is appropriate for a particular audience. I've worked with a lot of fourth graders (10-11 years old). I've seen a lot of people try to explain concepts to them and fail, sometimes because they're using sixth grade vocabulary the kids can't follow, and sometimes because they're using first grade vocabulary and overexplaining things and the kids get bored. It takes practice to explain things at exactly the right level for the audience -- it takes a teacher who is both smart (having mastery of the material) and experienced (knowing what level of complexity is audience-appropriate.)
- chegra 16y ago
  I remember, I used to be penalized in A'levels if I didn't give examples and analogies when I was explaining a concept. Actually the lecturer never gave any points for technical explanation. But this sort of learning came in handy years later when trying to explain the research I'm doing to my boss and people around me. I just think it is a skill that can be learned.
random42 16y ago
I came here to post "the exact same" comment. The assumption of smart people being good at communicating the explanation very well, is not necessarily true. In my personal experience, two of the most smart people, I have come across are basically not the best in communicating. They are so sharp, that thing obvious to them, are not obvious to most of the people. However, for most people, I find the observation to be correct.

rokhayakebe 16y ago

One thing I have noticed is people who do not seem smart to me are always quick to remind you of how smarter than other people they are.

JustAGeek 16y ago

This is actually my own test of whether or not I've really grokked something: If I can't explain it to someone such that she understands it as well, I haven't really understood that something.

thunk 16y ago

> But the larger consequence is that if you’re smart the world doesn’t seem very complicated. This might seem obvious, but the obvious thought is rather different. The obvious thought is: The world doesn’t seem complicated to smart people. But this isn’t what smart people actually think. They think the world isn’t complicated, period. Woah, woah, woah. "The world" is a very large thing indeed. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think "it isn't complicated, period." Simplifying insight is often hard won. And some things are just irreducibly complex. To think otherwise smells like Dunning-Krueger.

LaPingvino 16y ago
Give me an example of an irreducibly complex thing :)
- Estragon 16y ago
  You.
  - getonit 16y ago
    Fail, please refer to Evolution.
    - Symmetry 16y ago
      Evolution is just a way of explaining how someone came to be, not how they work. Being a good materialist I do think that people are reducible, but we certainly haven't been able to figure all of the steps out yet.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- ovi256 16y ago
  * The Belgian question. * Quantum mechanics. * The sovereign debt problem.
- pwhelan 16y ago

fforw 16y ago

> [Smart people] think the world isn’t complicated, period. um.. what!? The world is a complicated mess in just about every aspect except in those axiomatic systems we developed to create simplified models -- but the map is not the territory. The world is by far larger than those specialized areas we're good at.

davidw 16y ago
"As the circle of light increases, so does the circumference of darkness around it." -- Albert Einstein
pmccool 16y ago
Sure, but I think that there was an implicit assumption that the person under consideration was explaining something within their area of expertise. Otherwise the article would be claiming that a smart person can explain anything simply, which amounts to equating "smart" with "omniscient". The other assumption I made about the article was that it was discussing a useful heuristic, not a 100% reliable test. The inherent complexity of the world is one of the things that can make it give the wrong result, but not the only one.
- gloob 16y ago
  Perhaps that is true, but I feel that if the blogger really understood what he was talking about, he would have been able to phrase it in a way that wouldn't cause any confusion. ;)

allend 16y ago

Honest question: how many people here actually think they are dumber than the average person?

Eliezer 16y ago
I think I'm dumber than a randomly selected sentient being (from the entirety of space and time).
- donaq 16y ago
  What probability would you assign to that statement being true?
random42 16y ago
I am dumb. (Not even relatively to average person, even in absolute measure)
getonit 16y ago
On average, no. In random scenarios, frequently.
nollidge 16y ago
What do you mean by "dumber"?
fgf 16y ago
If we by dumb mean having a low IQ (and/or other correlated qualities) I think very few hacker news readers are under average.

Confusion 16y ago

People who truly understand their subject should have no trouble writing for a popular audience. This is false for at least two reasons. 1) People who truly understand their subject know they can't write for a popular audience without handwaving, partial truths and actually getting the complexity of the subject across. They may not want to write in that way. 2) The ability to 'think like a layman', properly estimate their background and slowly build up a story that they can follow without getting lost is a skill entirely different from 'knowing your subject'. It is prepostorous to suppose every intelligent person has that skill. It's a typical case where a lot of people mistake intelligence for skill and it's insulting to (technical) writers that have actually put effort into learning how to write. All in all, I doubt whether 10% of all people that 'truly understand their subject' can write for a popular audience.

DavidMcLaughlin 16y ago
Right. I like the sentiment of the post but it's definitely not a black and white case of: 1) You are stupid if you are hard to understand 2) You are smart if you are easy to understand They say the best teachers and coaches (i.e. the ones which are easiest to understand) are the ones who had to work the hardest to find success in their craft. Conversely, the most naturally gifted of people sometimes don't understand how amazing what they take for granted is and can't pass on this knowledge. There is also a lot of real world contradictions to this (I'm thinking sports here) so yes, there are a lot of shades of grey.
Estragon 16y ago
Yes, there are so many fallacies in that essay. It shows another way to pretend that you're smart: appeal to your audience's vanity by suggesting that you share a rare resistance to manipulation by intellectual intimidation.
- SiVal 16y ago
  Another fallacy is that smart people are more likely to be found behind profanity-laced rants. In my experience, people resort to vulgarity as a gimmick intended to convey a message that isn't adequately conveyed by their content itself. The emotional, gimmicky nature of it is the reason that it tends to be negatively correlated with logical quality.

cracki 16y ago

> Smart writing [...] in the profanity-laced angry rants you’ll find on someone’s blog. I'm thinking of Zed Shaw.

philk 16y ago

I think he's conflating "smart"[1] and "good at communicating". [1] In fact "smart" should probably be restricted based on domain. You can be a brilliant violin player but that doesn't mean you'll be a brilliant molecular biologist.

dagw 16y ago
I think you're conflating "smart" with "brilliant". I know several very smart people who aren't particularly brilliant at anything, and a couple who are brilliant at their domain, but really cannot be described as smart.
- philk 16y ago
  If they aren't particularly good at anything, how do you know that they're smart? They could merely sound smart to you because they seem (for example) articulate and hold similar opinions.
  - dagw 16y ago
    They're very good at many things, just not brilliant at any. They have fairly deep knowledge in a very wide variety of fields, they can grasp new concepts easily, they can quickly construct and understand both sound and intelligent arguments and are generally all round very intelligent people. They've simply taken a more jack of all trades approach to things, rather than focusing on becoming brilliant at something.

stcredzero 16y ago

From article: But the larger consequence is that if you’re smart the world doesn’t seem very complicated This is only for the part of reality designed by humans. Other parts of it are complicated. Not realizing this is a sign of ignorance.

donaq 16y ago

if you genuinely understand something — really, truly understand it — then it doesn’t seem complicated and you can explain it rather simply Uh, no? Some things are inherently complex. Try explaining how the Y combinator works (not what it does - why it works) to a layman in simple terms. I don't think it can be done.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
OK, let's try. I think it can be done in 40 minutes, one hour tops. 15 minutes to explain what a function is: f1 : ℝ -> ℝ f1 = x |-> a × x + b f2 : (ℝ × ℝ) -> ℝ f2 = (x, y) |-> x + y - 1 f3 : ℝ -> ℝ -> ℝ f3 = (x, y) |-> x + y - 1 (I fear curryfication can't be skipped) f4 : (ℝ -> ℝ) -> ℝ -> ℝ f4 = f |-> x |-> f(x) f5 : ∀ a, ∀ b, (a -> b) -> a -> b f5 = f |-> x |-> f(x) (Polymorphic types may be left out, but I think they're important) Then 5 minutes to explain what a recursive function is: fac : ℕ -> ℕ fac = 0 |-> 1 x |-> x × fac(x - 1) Then 5 minutes to present a fix point combinator… fix : ∀ a, (a -> a) -> a fix = f |-> f (fix f) (or we could just say that a is ℕ) …and implement the factorial with it. ffac : (ℕ -> ℕ) -> ℕ -> ℕ ffac = f |-> 0 |-> 1 f |-> x |-> x × (f(x - 1)) fac : ℕ -> ℕ fac = fix(fac) We can do a step by step, normal order evaluation. If any question is asked, just say that evaluating the arguments first just won't work here. Then, maybe 5 more minutes to explain the concept of self reference without actually naming oneself: ~PM(~P) Where you assume that for any "printable" string X, PX is true, ~PX is false; that for any X such that XM(X) is printable, PM(X) is true; and that any printable string is true, or just don't have the form PX or ~PX. You will note that ~PM(~P) is true and not printable, because it basically says "I am not printable". This is an anonymous self reference. Finally, we can go on and present the Y combinator itself. It does the same thing as the "fix" combinator, we just have to show that's because there is an anonymous self reference somewhere. I think it can be done in 10 minutes. Phew. Done. And I didn't use any knowledge that a high school kid shouldn't have. Did I miss something?
- bhousel 16y ago
  > Did I miss something? Just the part about explaining it to a layman in simple terms..

lhnz 16y ago

I think the author is just projecting. 1. There are plenty of smart people that are bad communicators. 2. Life is compicated and if you can't see the complexity you probably suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

coffeemug 16y ago

But, I suspect, for most people the world is a strange and mysterious place, governed by principles they do not understand, which affect them severely but cannot be controlled, only coped with as best as possible. The world is a strange and mysterious place, governed by principles we do not understand, which affect us severely but cannot be controlled, only coped with as best as possible. People that think otherwise might not be as smart as they consider themselves to be. I do agree with the overall point. Jargon can be used to simplify communication by using a language all parties understand, or to mask the fact that the speaker has no idea what they're talking about. But I take issue with the argument that everything can be described in a simple way. To quote Feynman, "If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize".

Tichy 16y ago

If somebody convinced my that the world isn't complicated, it would trigger a couple of warning flags of their own. Most likely, they fooled me.

miguelpais 16y ago

The good point I think the article makes before generalizing about smart people's qualities is the fact that in many cases, such as argument, there are people who will toss some concepts, jargon or ideas without fully understanding them and because of that can look to an outsider (maybe your boss) like they won the argument. Of course, if the other person in the conversation is really into that concept, jargon or idea he can quickly point out its flaws. But what is most likely to happen is for the other guy to have to make some effort to remember what that concept was and having to put the pieces together. When he can actually identify what was wrong in the argument, the battle will be long gone and lost. Meanwhile the other guy may have made his opinion prevail and gain something because of it.

goodside 16y ago

If you refuse to learn anything that isn't explained in a jargon-free blog post, the world will seem devoid of anything that can't be.

travem 16y ago

"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong."

theorique 16y ago

Smart writing won’t be in formal and difficult-to-understand journal articles, but in the profanity-laced angry rants you’ll find on someone’s blog. That’s where the smart people are, even if everybody else just thinks they’re dumb. The trouble with this principle is, by Sturgeon's law, you are forced to sift through the 90+% of profanity-laced angry rants that aren't worth anything to find the few that are actually worthwhile.

getonit 16y ago

You are smart if: you realise that formulating smartness is not smart. Bugger.

j_baker 16y ago

"Smart people actually say things that are very simple and easy to understand. And the smarter they are, the more clear what they say is. It’s stupid people who say things that are hard to understand." This is just one of those ideas that is good in theory, but simply isn't in line with reality. A smart person can make things as simple as possible, but they're not magic. You can't take a complex idea and magically make it simple.

fgf 16y ago

Posted by me in his comments section: "The feeling of understanding can, however, be deceptive. There are lot’s of high IQ, well read and honest (as in not consciously trying to mislead) people who disagree about solutions to problems they both feel they understand and have easily explained (tough often differing) mental models of. The issue of vouchers in the first comment is a good example. The “brighter” person does not seem to realize that the greatest benefit of vouchers (according to some, including me) is that they will give an incentive to innovation. This is something that cannot be adequately tested for in small controlled experiments. Your heuristic is great for detecting nonsense but it can’t help you find truth." PS. I'm not discussing vouchers today.

ra88it 16y ago

There are two ways to seem smart: 1) Over-complicate everything. 2) Over-simplify everything. Aaron's essay describes the former. It, and this comment, are examples of the latter.