36 ms·

Curiosity Is Better Than Being Smart?

• legohead 5y ago
  When I read biographies of Einstein, I had the impression that he was more curious than smart. He asked good questions, then followed through in figuring them out.
• reidjs 5y ago
  This is not a very useful article in my opinion. It is vague and generic about the benefits of being curious over being smart. Even the title doesn’t make sense to me, maybe rephrase it as “Is curiosity more important than intelligence?”
• chatoyance 5y ago
  X Is Better than Being Y? X:Y - Apples:oranges, Creativity:rational, etc. "Smart" is a point-in-time inference by a perceiver as an impression of a performant interaction. The reality is messy: multidimensional, inconsistent, and relative. "Curiosity" alone has no value without intelligence to navigate ambiguities, reconcile new data, and propose new inductions and deductions.
• GuB-42 5y ago
  The thing is, what is "smart"? For me "smart" is not just IQ, it is a set of things that make people successful in what they want to do includes raw intelligence but also education, people skills,... and curiosity, so it is part of it. "Rain men" are usually not called "smart" (except when compared to other autists) even if they can show almost superhuman feats of intelligence.
• kazinator 5y ago
  > Curios people become smart by accident. Their curiosity simply pushes them into various rabbit holes. But not such deep rabbit holes that they would become economic losers! > I personally know a lot of smart people. Some are really successful in terms of income and wealth. Others aren’t. The difference between the two types? The group of smart folks who fail to make a good living stand still. Yep; they just don't dive into those money-making curiosity rabbit holes. Like what makes people tick. Specifically in those moments. When they make the important decision to part with their money. And give it to you.
• ravenstine 5y ago
  You need both, but smartness (whatever that is exactly) is overrated. A smart person can over-analyze every parameter of a job to the point where they waste time, or if they are lazy will rationalize their way out of actually doing anything, but ask Forrest Gump to dig a ditch and he'll just go ahead and do it. Forrest Gump in effect got curious enough to get a boat and start fishing for shrimp and with help from Lt. Dan created a shrimp empire, all while countless masters degrees were serving coffee somewhere.
  • jl2718 5y ago
    I love that movie. And I think there is a lot to that point. But, it’s fiction. And if I may indulge my own biographical fiction thinking, I think his secret is that nobody believes that he is lying to them. Everybody believes anything he says. Nobody trusts a genius. And there is the paradox, a genius can never convince anybody of anything, but a simpleton can convince everybody of everything (e.g. The Usual Suspects).
  • dredmorbius 5y ago
    Forest Gump isn't even anecdata. It's fiction.
    • ravenstine 5y ago
      You're demonstrating my point.
  • snek_case 5y ago
    Intelligence is a lot of different things. If you can't focus, or focus very intensely on the wrong things, that reduces you general problem solving ability. I would argue that being able to focus on the right things is part of "intelligence". We tend to be overly focused on things like mathematical skills, but there's way more to it.
  • carrolldunham 5y ago
    I too have found myself basing my beliefs on example lives only to later reflect later with a forehead slap that it was fiction. Be careful.
• endisneigh 5y ago
  Conscientiousness and adaptability (especially with respect to growth) are the only real qualities that matter.
• rytill 5y ago
  > Smart People Become Curios The author was not curious enough about this essay's spellcheck squiggles.
  • mcphage 5y ago
    “Curios” is a word, so I guess that’s more about relying too heavily on spellcheck.
    • rytill 5y ago
      I actually looked it up after commenting and discovered the same. As any curious person would do.
• physicsgraph 5y ago
  Smart people are good at pattern identification and making predictions based on the perceived patterns. The problem is when pattern identification is not based on evidence. The evidence gathering process is where curiosity is more relevant.
  • paulpauper 5y ago
    I think it's more like finding something that deviates from a pattern and then somehow tying it in. Pattern identification is a part of it, but probably so much more.
• someelephant 5y ago
  My takeaway is that people who aren't self aware are less likely to be able to change for the better. Which I can agree with. How does one become self aware though?
  • speed_spread 5y ago
    Through the temporary dissolution of ego and other defensive mental constructs, psychedelics can help rewire the brain and flip on some hiterto unknown inner switches. One of which is better self knowledge. It's not a path to be taken lightly or alone. But is has certainly opened up new worlds to those who dared to thread it.
  • xattt 5y ago
    Humiliating experiences.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • stephen_g 5y ago
      People with all sorts of personality types will find ways to blame others for humiliating experiences even when it was entirely their own fault though...
  • turtlebits 5y ago
    Meditation/self-reflection can help. It's hard when society seems always focused on the next thing.
  • xyzelement 5y ago
    > How does one become self aware though? I agree with the "humiliating experience" comments below, but how to curate that? One way is put yourself in a challenging environment you (and others) have to confront coming up short consistently. EG: enter an academic program that isn't up your alley (eg, introverted dev? do an MBA.. You'll learn a lot besides the academics.) Afraid of confrontation? Try to become a manager and watch how you are forced to evolve your backbone. Also, try to get a job at FAANGs or other competitive places. Even failing interviews will teach you - where and why am I failing? Is it tech, communication, composure, etc? Even, try to date beautiful, kind people. Are they going for you - if not, what is it about you that's problematic? etc. It's a tough way to live in the moment, but it's awesome in retrospect. You evolve and achieve what you would not have - but at any given time you may be more focused on what's holding you back from the next level..
• leokeba 5y ago
  This reads like GPT-3.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• bedobi 5y ago
  that post is very hard to read why? too many paragraphs I get it it wants to read a bit like train of thought but ultimately it just makes the message harder to get across
• ncfausti 5y ago
  Along with curiosity—which I agree is probably one of the most underrated adult traits in terms of the ability to learn new things—is cultivating the imagination. Thinking up wild and vivid scenarios in your mind and playing around with ideas and experimenting with concepts is how I've gotten through most of the traditionally difficult subjects I've encountered so far.
  • Trex_Egg 5y ago
    That's a valuable tool to be possessed along with future planning and executions. I guess.
• scrame 5y ago
  Reminds me of the life of pi movie where they mistake the main characters precocity for genius,among other mistakes from adapting the book.
• philovivero 5y ago
  I think I found something else better than being smart: a high need for cognition. Possibly better than curiosity, but read below to find the nuance I find in that. I think I'm a little smart, but not too much higher-than-average. But because I constantly need to think about everything, I'm always exercising my brain, and working on problems that everyone else ignores half their day. I've known plenty of people way smarter than me that didn't achieve as much, because they just wanted to turn off and tune out. Drink some beer. Watch some mindless movies. I'm going 24x7. So like the multi-billionaire CEO who's only in that position because he works 80hr/wk and never turns it off... I'm doing well in tech (and my hobbies!) because I just can't stop thinking about algorithms and solving problems. My hobbies and entertainment end up being highly-technical intensive thought-requiring activities. Curiosity is also a trait I've got, but I suspect it's just a result of the high need for cognition. I find that I'm not that curious about things that don't make me think a lot.
  • Hokusai 5y ago
    > So like the multi-billionaire CEO who's only in that position because he works 80hr/wk and never turns it off... I do not believe this narrative that is only confirmed by billionaires themselves. They mostly rely on the work in others for their success, why working more hours would even have an impact?
    • refenestrator 5y ago
      They work to stay on top of the pile. Working for impact, or for the business or customers is a career limiting decision several levels below CEO with a few exceptions, usually original founders. Everyone else gets filtered out.
    • tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      I was reading an interesting article about investment banking recently, it was quite clear that the further up the greasy pole bankers climb the less hours they work. The people at the top were only doing half the hours of those entering the profession.
    • 5y ago
• paulpauper 5y ago
  congrats to author for getting two articles on front page at same time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28748374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28748374 mad skills
• WalterBright 5y ago
  Being smart doesn't mean anything if you don't put it to productive use.
  • LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    But what's "productive use"? I always loved this passage from Hitchhikers: > For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons. Is a smart person who scratches his or her own itches and lives a happy life unproductive if scratching those itches doesn't produce things (accomplishments, wealth, etc.) that are visible to and valued by others?
    • WalterBright 5y ago
      Let me put it this way. I've known some very smart people who have led unhappy lives. They did not enjoy their lives of failure. They'd pick the right things to work on, but were too lazy to do the necessary work, and it would just peter out into nothing. Like one guy who decided that being a real estate agent was the path to success. He studied for and aced the exam to get a license with ease. He quit after a few weeks of discovering that being a successful agent required focused effort, and went back to living hand to mouth. His life was a sequence of one scheme like that after another, until he passed away young from neglecting his health. It still pains me to recount this, he was a good guy.
      • LurkingPenguin 5y ago
        Out of all the "smart" and "less smart" people I know/have known, the ones who seem to be happiest are not those who pick the "right things" to work on but those who know how to put "work" in its proper place. Success and failure aren't always about money and the kind of accomplishments that society values most.
• xyzelement 5y ago
  Every situation requires balancing curiosity and caution, knowledge and exploration, etc. You may be "curious" but you may have a strong fear of failure that prevents you from actually experimenting when you genuinely don't know the likely outcome. Sometimes that keeps you back from important growth, other times it keeps you from blowing your head off. It's also amazing that in the world we live in currently, you can do very well by just not fucking up. EG: someone born in the 80s could just follow "best practices" their whole life so far and be fine - eg: get good grades, study a valuable major, don't eat garbage, don't marry crazy people/idiots, stay off dangerous drugs, and mainly show up to work, be clean and nice - and you can by now be a very successful 40 year old without really having had to innovate or take huge risks. It's amazing.
  • marbletimes 5y ago
    It depends on where. In a European country, think Spain, Italy, France, "get good grades, study a valuable major, don't eat garbage, don't marry crazy people/idiots, stay off dangerous drugs, and mainly show up to work, be clean and nice" and you are likely to end up with job paying 40 to 80k (before taxes) a year, which is not bad, but I consider that money far from financially making someone "a very successful 40-year-old". With my STEM major and a PhD, I would have made between 40 and 50k per year before taxes.
    • tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      That's only if you measure success along a single axis (income).
      • mellavora 5y ago
        I've historically measured my professional success over many other axis, which has lead to a detriment of income. I was fine with this in my 20s to 40s, but now in my 50s it seems a mistake. When young, you have the belief that you can always make up the money later, or the effects of not having it are small. When it is later, you realize how little of a window you have left. So while I would agree that professional success should be measured on multiple scales, if you were to run a PCA on the multiple dimensions then income should be the largest principle component. NOTE! I am speaking only of success in your career. However, since this is where most of your energies during your adult life go, it is a dominant factor in your success in other areas.
• turtlebits 5y ago
  Not a fan these I'm-better-than-you social media type posts. Neither is objectively better- I just wish more people would focus on self-awareness and reflection than comparing themselves to others. All of us have lessons to learn.
• tejtm 5y ago
  For my part I happy to be dumb enough to not be sure what the outcome of an experiment is always going to be. Folks both empirically and supposedly smarter will claim to know the outcome before hand. They not only miss out on all the fun of doing the experiment but are lucky to be correct half the time never mind missing out on learning the incidental things (good & bad) that end up useful later.
  • agumonkey 5y ago
    The ability to be open minded yet still trying to come up with various models is key imo.
• beckman466 5y ago
  Every child is born wonderfully curious. Meeting walls instead of bridges sets the boundaries. "science is a symphony of ongoing fractal rhizomatically-connected feedback loops. something happens and humans go "oh shit, what was that?". then we ask questions and then through making theories and testing them (designing feedback and sub-feedback loops) slowly we understand a new emerging pattern. 1.) the universe responds to something in a new way we hadn't seen before, 2.) we document it, we repeat it to make sure the universe ain't fucking with us, and 3.) that's a completed feedback loop we can pass on: knowledge. we rinse and repeat for more, to infinity, slowly reverse-engineering all the beautiful natural phenomena. this product, our new actionable knowledge, is technology: if i hit these rocks together i get a fire; if i put round tree trunks under some heavy thing i can then roll the thing on top of it very easily ("wow, we can move rocks and make pyramids, here we go!..." "oh fuck, the slavery/misery...") etc., a continuing evolution right into the modern world. billions and trillions of feedback loops. neverending feedback loops. feedback loops racing at us from the past, intertwined with the thousands of open feedback loops revealing themselves today. but what has happened to science under capitalism? since the 1970's especially, the propertied class [...] has been pushing for global systems for intellectual property 'protection'. what does this mean? they want to spread their mind virus to make you think they are your baby daddy. they want you to put them high on the pedestal. to have you think they are unique inventors who have survived their deathly privileged upbringings, not cheaters who stole feedback loops from the commons." source: https://www.reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/comments/pvlcnh/love_letter_the_black_box_society_that_turns_us/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/comments/pvlc...
• zw123456 5y ago
  This is very interesting.... A friend and I have been back and forthing in a jocular way with various permutations of pop psychology type quizzes that we all see online or where ever... example: what would you rather be... A) smart B) lucky C) wise D) rich E) in love etc etc. you get the idea. Just goofing. we did not think to include curious, which, dang, is a good one. But the list gets long after a while. Also, I have had this discussion with my Dad, who is 93, and he always tells me how smart I am, of course he is my Dad, but I always tell him how wise he is and how much I want him to share his wisdom with me. I suppose, most likely, the answer has something to do with where you are in life, but me, being 64, and my Dad being 93, I long for his wisdom. But, then I have nephews, in their 20's who wish for the wealth I have. It's interesting. I wish I had some wisdom, or truth for you. Sorry. Just observations.
  • FinanceAnon 5y ago
    I feel that wisdom is a very overlooked trait. Especially in the younger generations it is associated with being "boring", which is a shame. I think not that many people care about being smart, and even less care about being wise. I am 27 and I often think about how to develop more wisdom for life, but it's difficult to find some good resources for it. A collection of wise quotes doesn't go really far in my opinion. The best thing I have found is just lots of introspection and reading books which have stood the test of time. But I wish there was a more straightforward way.
• analog31 5y ago
  I think a good combination is being smart but playing dumb. I mean, a person has whatever brain they were born with, and can't turn it on and off. But if they can perceive a situation where smartness is resented or stereotyped, then they can adapt their behavior as needed.
  • hyperpallium2 5y ago
    After I noticed that the smartest people I know don't act smart, I also started to not act smart. But, so far, this hasn't made anyone think I'm really smart. :/
    • analog31 5y ago
      See, it's working. ;-)
• setr 5y ago
  I generally describe the problem as: knowledge is nodes in a graph, wisdom is making connections between nodes in that graph. Framing curiosity and smartness under that model: curiosity is your ability to add nodes, smart is your ability to make connections. That is, curiosity produces knowledge, and smartness produces wisdom.
  • riversflow 5y ago
    Graph nodes are an excellent framework for thinking about what constitutes intelligence, thanks for sharing. I really don't like the term "smart" because it is vague, anecdotally it typically means memory, but it can also relate a high level of creativity and problem solving ability as well. All of which I feel are aspects of an intellect. The main vectors I see for general intelligence as I see it are: memory/knowledge - here relating the number of nodes held on the graph curiosity/learning - the rate at which nodes are added to the graph abstraction/understanding - the ability to distill knowledge, almost like a hash map, but I think an ML model of some subset of nodes is a more accurate (but kinda cheating)approximation. critical thinking - the window size with which you attempt to traverse the graph creativity/problem-solving - the ability to formulate rules for a novel traversal of the graph logic/reasoning - the ability to traverse the graph in an efficient manner and give the right output astuteness - the ability to recognize nodes that don't belong or are missing on the traversal self-awareness - indexing the contents of your graph and relating it to all possible nodes, also your understanding of what all possible nodes represents. Then there are higher level abstractions, wisdom is the confluence of a high level of understanding, critical thinking, reasoning, astuteness and self-awareness. Smarts is some impressive combination of knowledge, critical thinking, problem-solving and reasoning. Fun stuff!
    • dgb23 5y ago
      Critical thinking and abstraction seem to be related at least in informal systems. There, choosing the scope, or window is highly related to choosing abstractions. You almost always cut off edges (AKA make assumptions) knowingly or not.
• LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  The author's writing style rubs me the wrong way. His other post ("Why Obsessively Following Successful People Online is Dangerous") and this one share a weird style in which the author feigns self-deprecation only to follow it with "but I've figured it all out and here are 3-5 bullet points that you should follow!" Examples: > A lot of people say to me: “Ivaylo! You are so smart. Your newsletter is full of insights. The books you summarize are so elegantly presented with so much attention and care. Your parents must be proud!” To this, I always respond: “Thanks! I was simply born amazingly gifted.” And then I wake up. I’m kidding, of course. To be honest. I consider myself pretty ordinary in terms of smartness. Actually, the word I’m looking for is average. But there is one quality that helps me fight through my natural stupidity – my unfair advantage sort to say – I’m curious. > So what’s the problem? It’s this: We spend more time consuming content instead of using the content we consume. And I’m not simply saying this because I think that I’m an omnipotent idol that knows everything. I’m saying this because I feel this way all the time myself. I get lost in the consuming stage – drowning in The Ambitions River – more often than I care to admit.
• dav43 5y ago
  Whats "better" mean in this instance? Is it, "you will have a better chance of being wealthy?" or is it, "you will lead a happier life?". For that matter, whats "smart"? Is it to score high on tests, work 8-8 job, and be called smart by everyone else? Or is it make good decisions, work the least amount possible and become super wealthy and retire earlier than everyone else? Why be smart, if you'll be poor anyway? Would you choose to be less smart but more wealthy? (All rhetorical). I have friends that range in "smartness" and I find no correlation to wealth outcomes. If anything, friends that are considered - or exhibit "naivety" - actually are more happy.
  • pm90 5y ago
    From the article: > I personally know a lot of smart people. Some are really successful in terms of income and wealth. Others aren’t. > The difference between the two types? It looks like the author is referring to the former.
  • FPGAhacker 5y ago
    And then there is the brand of naivety where people chew on tide pods. I suppose they might be happy too.
• kthejoker2 5y ago
  By coincidence, a relevant Austin Kleon blog post from today: https://austinkleon.com/2021/10/04/a-blessed-unrest/ https://austinkleon.com/2021/10/04/a-blessed-unrest/ This is Agnes de Mille conversing with the great dancer Martha Graham: > “But,” I said, “when I see my work I take for granted what other people value in it. I see only its ineptitude, inorganic flaws, and crudities. I am not pleased or satisfied.” > “No artist is pleased.” > “But then there is no satisfaction?” > “No satisfaction whatever at any time,” she cried out passionately. “There is only a queer divine dissatisfaction, a blessed unrest that keeps us marching and makes us more alive than the others.”
  • inglor_cz 5y ago
    I must admit this is precisely the same way I feel about my writing.
  • nobody0 5y ago
    That's both the beauty and curse of life I guess.
• hyperpallium2 5y ago
  Everything is a poor substitute for actual thought except data.
• zitterbewegung 5y ago
  If you are curious then you might be able to do what is for you a lateral move that doesn't require much effort for you to do but a massive difference in your life. Things like changing jobs, getting a new hobby, giving presentations it is things like this that if you figure out these kind of things it can have a big impact on your life.
• garbagetime 5y ago
  The connection the writer makes between financial success and curiosity is strange to me. Most of the cleverest and most curious people I know DGASF about money, beyond earning an average wage.
• kollayolla 5y ago
  The Friedman charts ruin the post
• kollayolla 5y ago
  The worn out Rumsfeld quote that all you dorks on hacker news love so much made me stop reading
• rramadass 5y ago
  "Curiosity" is a Necessary but not Sufficient trait for "Smartness".
• Jack000 5y ago
  High cognitive ability is like having a big engine in a car, doesn't do you any good if there's no traction. Then there are people who love nothing more than doing donuts in a parking lot.
• Jensson 5y ago
  Basically every person is curious. They might not be curious about the same thing as you, but they people are curious about something. If you think that their interests are bland or boring then that is just you lacking in curiosity for what they are interested in so you don't notice it. Also most likely they will think that you are bland or boring as well since you aren't curious about the same things they are. What this article means is that you should be curious about things relating to work so you can have a good career instead of getting left behind. Sounds boring to me, I'd rather people have a wide range of curiosities, diversity is more interesting.
• Borrible 5y ago
  Survivorship bias is the privilege and luxury of the survivor and the successful. It's a big share of the fun. Some say, most do it just because of it. So it depends by what modus operandi more grandchildren are produced, if I may use a biological term- Beside, curiosity and smartness aren't mutually exclusive. To the contrary there are a lot of curious smartasses out there. And, what would you do with your curiosity without some smarts? Testing your luck?
• gbjw 5y ago
  The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell. Simone Weil
  • mdp2021 5y ago
    Intelligence is emancipation. This is also reflected in the analogy: the increase of freedom is there. Surely Simone Weil will have added something to make that whole idea significant: a cage remains, so what? A gain is there, beneficial. Pride is justified. Tell about "limits" to someone "in a tiny cage": it takes "a decently sized cage" to see its limits.
• bserge 5y ago
  I think it's part of being smart. If you never question and research anything, you never learn anything, hence your head is empty or full of conclusions drawn from pure speculation. There also seems to be an emotional aspect to it - I know some pretty smart people who always trip on bullshit that evokes emotions. Looking up ADHD and going the "these people are geniuses" path (most aren't), or looking up Covid vaccine information and focusing on the negative effects (most don't have them). That kinda shit. If the idea that some people are prewired to believe conspiracy theories is true, that could explain it. There's just not as much excitement in the mundane, I guess. Of course, the government being out to get you is more interesting than them being unbelievably incompetent.
• curation 5y ago
  I am not sure there is a difference?
• andy-x 5y ago
  "Curious people become smarter ..." Smarter and smart are not the same thing.
• checkyoursudo 5y ago
  I am a curiosity/intelligence researcher, AMA. (Seriously, I am.) This article reads like un-researched folk psychology rather than science, which is fine I guess, but I would take it all with skepticism. I'll note that based on my and others' research, it seems to be better to have state curiosity (curiosity about the task at hand) rather than trait curiosity (as in, claiming to be a person with a high curiosity personality trait). Trait curiosity gets you almost nothing: no better learning outcomes, no better performance, and no better recall (in complex problem solving anyway; results are sometimes different in trivial pursuits, but who cares about that [edit: I shouldn't say it that way. I was being glib. From a scientific knowledge standpoint, of course we are curious about how curiosity works in trivial matters!]). I don't believe there is a way to boost your state (task) curiosity. I'd also be skeptical that you can boost your trait curiosity. Anyway, one of the main problems with curiosity research is the difficulty in even defining curiosity to a high degree of consensus. I would suggest that as you read this thread, you will see various meanings. Is curiosity a desire to gain knowledge? Is it a desire to see if you are right or wrong? Is it a drive to test existing hypotheses? Is it a motivation sparked by novelty or uncertainty? I would genuinely be interested in knowing what you, dear reader, think curiosity really is. :)
  • Scarblac 5y ago
    You mention that trait curiosity doesn't give you anything, but does state curiosity? Could choosing to work in a field that one considers more interesting lead to more state curiosity when doing that work?
    • checkyoursudo 5y ago
      > You mention that trait curiosity doesn't give you anything, but does state curiosity? I shouldn't say that trait curiosity doesn't get you anything. It may correlate with some benefits, though it is not clear to me that trait curiosity research has sufficiently proven that trait curiosity gets you more than higher intelligence does. From my reading, pretty much all of the benefits claimed by trait curiosity are just the benefits of being smarter, so I'm not really convinced there is anything there. With that said: yes, I would say that in my research and my general sense, there is a noticeable effect size between state curiosity and performance. This includes being objectively correct in problem solving, ability to recall over time (better memory), better memory accuracy, etc. > Could choosing to work in a field that one considers more interesting lead to more state curiosity when doing that work? I think this is probably true. Certainly there are proposed links between interest and curiosity in the literature. Some, I would say, argue there is no difference, though I think there probably still is some difference. I am interested in certain type of art, for example, while at the same time not being curious about how it's made or anything else about it apart from wanting to look at it. Believing what I believe, if I wanted to perform better and be more stimulated by my work, I would certainly focus on interest and curiosity. But I am biased, because I work on curiosity itself. I am literally curious about the thing that makes me curious about itself. :) If your goal is fame or money or power, then following your interests and curiosity might not get you there, of course.
• BoHerfVIJrEsq 5y ago
  I'm surprised not to see any mention of Feynman. He's my go-to example of a person not exceptionally intelligent, but an incredibly advantageous combination of intelligent and extremely curious. At that level of curiosity, he was never satisfied with his own explanations, because there were still "holes" in what he wanted to be a perfectly continuous story about how things worked -- how everything worked.
• MrYellowP 5y ago
  Curiosity can cause you to be smart, but being smart alone does not necessarily make you curious.
• jonplackett 5y ago
  Curiosity being a prerequisite to being smart is probably more true. Intelligence I guess you can be born with, but you don’t get smart without effort, and curiosity is about the biggest forward driver you’ll find.
• Traster 5y ago
  I'm unconvinced by this article in general. First, I don't really beleive you can become more curious or more smart so the choice between the two is rather academic. What you can do is mimic smart people and mimic curious people. Reading a book doesn't make you more curious, it skips the part where you're curious and gives you the behaviour of the curious person. Is that enough? I'm not sure. I think it's probably difficult to motivate yourself to behave like a curious person, when you aren't one. It's all well and good to say "read a book" but a curious person reads a book with intention - they want to learn something about a specific thing. For example, I read history books because I'm curious about human nature in society. For the person who isn't curious, they can read the same books but who is to say they're taking the same information from that book as the curious person? I also think however, that there is value in not being curious. The author talks about how someone with a degree may be smart not curious. But actually, it's very valuable for someone with a degree not to be curious in some cases. At some point we draw the line between learning and application, and if you are always learning, always curious, you do literally have the possibility of never using the things you learned. I really enjoyed starting a new job a few years ago- not because I was curious - but because if it offered me the opportunity to get my head down and use all that knowledge I'd accrued. I'm not an incurious person, but curiousity isn't an end in itself.
• powerapple 5y ago
  What's being smart? Can you be smart without acquiring knowledge? I am lost.
• the6threplicant 5y ago
  Curiosity and not Smart: down the conspiracy rabbit hole you can go Smart and not curious: who knows? psychopath? Both: fun person to talk to at a party
• BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  Honestly, being smart is overrated. Granted, it's better than being dumb, but being hard working, having social skills, being at the right time at the right place, having grit, having a head start in life (money, status, etc), looking attractive, having stamina, having an upbeat personality, all offer often as good or better deals and/or less downsides. Smart is like a spice, it's great to add to something good to make it better. But it can't be the main thing.
  • FinanceAnon 5y ago
    I agree. I see being smart as the ability to learn some things quickly. However, you have to apply this in the right way and that's why other character traits are important - such as wisdom, kindness, patience. If being "smart" is someone's main personality trait, I think they might miss out on the bigger picture.
  • ozim 5y ago
    Any of the traits listed is overrated on its own. You want to have a good enough mix but I would say, scoring high on any 3 of those should give nice results. People boast about need to be hard working, having grit or how easy everything comes for attractive people. Then there is a lot of people who focus on their strengths too much. Like if one is attractive already focusing on improving that will not bring much more to his life. Improving on hard working while being attractive that is going to bring some serious results. Improving on social skills while being hard working the same. Just mix up some third trait and see how much one can achieve. Of course one cannot work on "being at the right time at the right place" directly - but other traits if worked on can bring opportunities so like having better social skills can open some doors or make new friends that will have different connections. I would even say that having 2 of those traits high can bring "being in the right time at the right place" into reality.
• k__ 5y ago
  After reading "Guns, Germs & Steel" and "The Gervais Principle", I think, curiosity is better for a group and being smart better for an individual (group). So, both are crucial. GG&S makes the case, that people say "Necessity is the mother of invention." but historically this hasn't been true. The best inventions were random findings and only got applied to the best use after they have been found. TGP makes the case, that people who are smart (sociopaths) are able to extract the most benefit of a specific situation. If a group of people doesn't have curious individuals, the smart ones don't have any basis to use it to their (groups) advantage.
• durmonski 5y ago
  Thank you for sharing my article!
• sebringj 5y ago
  I don't feel these labels matter. If you are amazing at execution of important or hard problems, this should be the bar. Elon Musk talks about how he interviews people. He asks them about the challenging problems they've solved and how they go through it. In the process finding out if they actually did it. Given his success of hiring seems like good advice to focus on achievement.
• EricE 5y ago
  Indeed - the pleasure of finding things out. A fantastic book and also a great way of life. Be curious and be successful!
• topologie 5y ago
  “If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all.” ― John Cage