4 ms·

>The best scientists don't make good managers This brings up an important point. People are good at different tasks. Some people are exceptional with gleaning

>The best scientists don't make good managers This brings up an important point. People are good at different tasks. Some people are exceptional with gleaning and regurgitating information from texts and lectures. This is what we mostly label as "smart" today. Others can be great at different things, such as any of the vast sets of social skills, critical thinking, maths, strategy, etc. The problem is that while intelligence in one skill is correlated with intelligence in another, it is not necessarily the case. We probably all have met engineers who openly admit they're not the greatest writers. Another example was one I learned from my interest in chess. Bobby Fischer was one of the greatest at the game, but notoriously struggled with memorizing opening game lines and theory. I am sure many of us here have also met engineers and academics with a lot of knowledge in their field, but whom also hold missconceptions, or easily come to factually erroneous conclusions on things which they have not studies. When I read the story, I was a bit incredulous at the author's words that "IQ is real and it does matter," not because it's such an obvious over-simplification. However, universities will be reluctant to disavow their beliefs in the mystical IQ--an idea which rests in the scholarly literature as an estimation of G, general intelligence--as this is a set of institutions which benefits from their faith not just that it is something which can be measured on a test, but that they do accurately measure it. They're running in circles with this "medium brilliance" because they're out of ideas about why their faith's predictions failed. Turns out those who score the best on IQ tests are those who are the best at scoring well on IQ tests--not the same set of skills needed to be the best scientists.

reefoctopus 9y ago
Do you have a source for that Bobby Fischer anecdote? I’ve read several biographies, and I’ve never heard it mentioned that he had trouble memorizing openings. There were, however, quite a few stories that suggest he had perfect recall.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Maybe my characterization of his memory should be revised to instead say he had particular disdain for the necessity of memorizing opening game theory to play at a high level. In the case of your background, you are aware of him complaining about this through many interviews in his later life, and that he was known to struggle with this. He even invented a new variant of chess for specifically this specific reason. Here is one such interview: https://youtu.be/7EuxVOgrEig https://youtu.be/7EuxVOgrEig
  - gowld 9y ago
    That interview is after his mental illness caught up with him. When he was a champion, he was so much better than everyone that it's silly to say he struggled with openings. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Opening_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Opening_theory > "He employs a limited range of openings. Of course, this is not a sign of Fischer's limited creativity, since he compensates for this by a very profound and sound knowledge of the variations he favours [sic]." Plisetsky & Voronkov 2005, p. 270. > Fischer was renowned for his opening preparation and made numerous contributions to chess opening theory He promoted (not invented) Fischerrandom / Chess960 because he felt that memorizing ever-long opening sequences was boring and ruined the game, and that would be soon dominated by computers with their far-superior memory.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      I'm not sure what your source is, but perhaps update the Chess960 Wikipedia page with this information because what you're saying here contradicts what's there. Fischer was, despite being, at one point, the greatest chess player in the world, and on people's all-time greatest lists, predictable in his use of openings, as you know since this is widely documented and you're well-read on him. Your quote even admits this. So I'm not sure what you are exactly disagreeing with that I said. Maybe the source of disagreement is that I unintentionally gave the impression that he has a bad memory, or a bad opening game. As he was one of the greatest chess players, this was clearly not true. Rather, the idea was that he had a notable disdain and discouragement from memorizing learning opening game theory. He was never able to master a very large number of openings... This was a notable feature of him as a player. Perhaps he could have, but that would be speculation. I think he just wasn't as good at it as the other top players.

reefoctopus 9y ago

Do you have a source for that Bobby Fischer anecdote? I’ve read several biographies, and I’ve never heard it mentioned that he had trouble memorizing openings. There were, however, quite a few stories that suggest he had perfect recall.

wallace_f 9y ago
Maybe my characterization of his memory should be revised to instead say he had particular disdain for the necessity of memorizing opening game theory to play at a high level. In the case of your background, you are aware of him complaining about this through many interviews in his later life, and that he was known to struggle with this. He even invented a new variant of chess for specifically this specific reason. Here is one such interview: https://youtu.be/7EuxVOgrEig https://youtu.be/7EuxVOgrEig
- gowld 9y ago
  That interview is after his mental illness caught up with him. When he was a champion, he was so much better than everyone that it's silly to say he struggled with openings. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Opening_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Opening_theory > "He employs a limited range of openings. Of course, this is not a sign of Fischer's limited creativity, since he compensates for this by a very profound and sound knowledge of the variations he favours [sic]." Plisetsky & Voronkov 2005, p. 270. > Fischer was renowned for his opening preparation and made numerous contributions to chess opening theory He promoted (not invented) Fischerrandom / Chess960 because he felt that memorizing ever-long opening sequences was boring and ruined the game, and that would be soon dominated by computers with their far-superior memory.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    I'm not sure what your source is, but perhaps update the Chess960 Wikipedia page with this information because what you're saying here contradicts what's there. Fischer was, despite being, at one point, the greatest chess player in the world, and on people's all-time greatest lists, predictable in his use of openings, as you know since this is widely documented and you're well-read on him. Your quote even admits this. So I'm not sure what you are exactly disagreeing with that I said. Maybe the source of disagreement is that I unintentionally gave the impression that he has a bad memory, or a bad opening game. As he was one of the greatest chess players, this was clearly not true. Rather, the idea was that he had a notable disdain and discouragement from memorizing learning opening game theory. He was never able to master a very large number of openings... This was a notable feature of him as a player. Perhaps he could have, but that would be speculation. I think he just wasn't as good at it as the other top players.