4 ms·

I would say I have the opposite experience on being only a bit clever. Being not smart at all usually also means you are ignorant to what you don't know, that

I would say I have the opposite experience on being only a bit clever. Being not smart at all usually also means you are ignorant to what you don't know, that life has its merits, Repetitive jobs don't bore you, and happiness comes from simpler joys in life. I wouldn't mind living that way at all. Being very smart means none of the stuff you mention is hard. Math comes naturally, Crazy smart people need to put no effort to understand complex topics, while their happiness is typically in esoteric goals or breakthrough research, most people don't understand anything of what they do, so either society is sympathetic to challenges or oblivious to what they do. Financially/Socially once they have a safe academic job, the difference of success/failure is not visible to most regular people, even if they win a field's medal or Noble prize most people hardly understand it. Being a bit clever is the worst of the lot, you understand enough to know how much you don't really know. Constantly you are making decisions basis what you know is poor understanding. Math, subtext, knowledge is all hard, but doesn't look so hard you will completely give up or blissfully don't know it exists. Social peer groups keep missing that intelligence can be pretty scaled, we can perceive that someone is smarter than us but not by how much. Everyone one assumes there is just one level above them, equivalent to crazy smart. We are therefore accorded with the praise, money and recommendations and also responsibilities of being perceived crazy smart. I would happily trade to being exactly perceived as I am or less and forgo all the money and praise if I didn't also be saddled with expectations of coming up with solutions all the time.

hans1729 5y ago
>Being not smart at all usually also means you are ignorant to what you don't know, that life has its merits, Repetitive jobs don't bore you, and happiness comes from simpler joys in life. I wouldn't mind living that way at all. You're mixing up all kinds of unrelated things here. As does PG. Whats smartness? Going by Joscha Bach, it's the ability to reach your goals, as opposed to intelligence, your ability to make models. Wether repetitive work bores you isn't a matter of intelligence or smartness, however it does correlate significantly with cognitive functions (Jung). The then following paragraph seems projective to me, generalizations are just all over the place; thats just not how it works, neither from a neuro- nor from a psychological perspective. It doesn't matter wether you're intellectual middle or high brow, you will always be an idiot because you'll always be residing in a brain, being bound to its constraints of focus and attention. the notion of absolute intelligence that you imply when relating to "being a bit clever is the worst of the lot" seems off to me. >I would happily trade to being exactly perceived as I am or less and forgo all the money and praise if I didn't also be saddled with expectations of coming up with solutions all the time. You're contradicting yourself: first you say that the general population doesn't get what being smart implies, and then you say that the general population expects you to deliver on what being smart implies Sorry if this came off hostile, it wasn't meant so in any way. I just can't relate to these absolute notions and would strongly suggest you to read into psychology and neuroscience
- mach1ne 5y ago
  You lost me at the last sentence. (Jk, actually at Joscha Bach). The thing is, there is no consensus on what intelligence or smartness or any concept adjacent is. The layman notion is indeed wrong. But reading psychology and neuroscience will only put you deeper into this misery, as the theories proposed have shaky foundations and contradict each other. I guess that the brain being a complex system there might not be one or multiple attributes of intelligence; just different behaviours.
  - breck 5y ago
    > I guess that the brain being a complex system there might not be one or multiple attributes of intelligence; just different behaviours I just ordered “Society of Mind” by Minsky. I spent some time this year working on multi agent simulations, then started wondering about the individual as really an apartment building of agents, and then started looking for the prior art, and found that book. This will probably be a dead end like so many before but that’s the current thread I’m on in my understanding of the complex system that is the brain.
- manquer 5y ago
  I don't think anything you said is hostile. Perhaps I should have redrafted it better given that nature of of topic, I should have expected to be misunderstood a bit. --- Firstly Caveat Lector: Yes generalization is a natural hazard of this topic and I am guilty as everyone else on this thread, we(and PG) are drawing conclusions basis anecdotal personal experiences and generalizing that obviously may not hold. Perhaps I should have called out explicitly, I assumed that is already implicitly clear in this topic. Everything I say[1] in this kind of topic is almost always a opinion or a best a theory. ---- The scale to me[2]: Not being smart[3] means everyone assumes you are their level or below them. A "little bit smart" means when some(many) people assume you know better than them. Crazy smart is people I cannot understand and are way smarter than I am. I am not saying general population, I am saying it is difficult to comprehend how much smarter[2] anyone else for any person independent of their own personal levels that is by kind of basic limitation of not being as smart as them, if you could understand the gap you would probably as smart as well. It doesn't matter if the first person is super smart already and other person is even smarter. This has an effect that people inherently under or overestimate[4] what the other person is capable of, that is what am alluding to. I don't have a knowledge on neuroscience to comment on that, however I absolutely do not have any interest in reading anymore psychology or debate with amateurs / professionals on it, my experience[5] interacting with the field : it is filled with pseudo-science (Yes including big names like Jung), every conventional term has always has different professional meaning which layman are expected to know fluently to discuss anything related, evidence/studies for many widely held theories is usually small sampled studies and typically math is at best basic linear regression models conflating correlation and causation . Psychology and Economics are two fields I consider a lot of waste of time trying to study for non professionals [6], Metaphysics or philosophy at least is fully abstract( like Math?), this mixing of reality with pretty weak science[7] makes a pretty bad combination. I understand that may makes me ignorant in some eyes. Sadly a lot of economic and workplace policy is determined by influential schools of thought in both fields, as everybody is affected by policy everyone has(should have) a opinion . ---- P.S. I didn't intend come across as aggressive/harsh or snide, but trying to be specific can come across has not being polite and snide, I am not that a gifted a writer(and English is not my first language) to write the same intent and make it sound better, apologies if it did not come out well. ---- [1] For that matter anyone else says including professionals, I can only claim for myself though. [2] This may not apply to others, I am not a professional to be able to generalize it, I am just sharing my anecdotal version. [3] Smart here and all other terms I am using is common sense definitions, kind of similar to "I will know it when I see it" obscenity definition by Potter in the Roth test. I don't have any expertise or interest in framing in formal narrow terms [4] In my experience [5] I can only talk about my personal experience, all of these are generalizations, am sure will have dozens of exceptions or completely opposite view points backed with solid evidence. It is statement of opinion not fact. [6] You( and the world) may a different opinion on this, I am not stating it as what everyone should also see it as, just how I see it, and I am fine not holding a consensus view [7] In my view
Aperocky 5y ago
> Repetitive jobs don't bore you, and happiness comes from simpler joys in life. I wouldn't mind living that way at all. As much as I sometime would want to be the cat that I owned, I enjoy much more about actually understanding the world around me (physically). Still bound to flesh and dopamine for happiness, but it's about the best deal we have on Earth right now.
mrkstu 5y ago
So much this... I'm one of eleven kids- I was the 'smart one' and what an absolute drag that title was and is. The title still sticks despite having a brother with multiple award winning plays, another brother being a successful serial entrepreneur, and sisters with published books. I've watched them succeed while I didn't finish college due to ADHD driving me to distraction. Luckily I have the computer skills requisite to be a successful network architect- but I'm quite aware I could have been a surgeon, a constitutional lawyer, a good to great political commentator or a quant if I had that next bit of mental concentration and memory. I'm very aware of that gap and it grinds in the gears pretty continually now that I'm older and firmly entrenched in a career- what a bit of ADHD meds at the right time in my life would have meant to allow that potential to be unlocked. To see those I was on the debate team with or in the same book clubs or Latin class being able to step up to the next level and build fairly continually rather than fighting against their mental shortcomings. But really, in the end, I still have that bit more access to curiosity and the deeper things that come with that curiosity- I was commenting to my daughters in the car the other day that the acceleration they felt in the car pushing them back in their seats was functionally equivalent to gravity. That they are constantly accelerating towards the earth, which is what keeps them connected to the ground. That kind of thinking, though in many ways generic and obvious, is probably not a thing any of my siblings would say and an important part of how I think and approach the world- and not something I would trade to step down into for a bit more oblivious contentment.
- handrous 5y ago
  > I've watched them succeed while I didn't finish college due to ADHD driving me to distraction. Luckily I have the computer skills requisite to be a successful network architect- but I'm quite aware I could have been a surgeon, a constitutional lawyer, a good to great political commentator or a quant if I had that next bit of mental concentration and memory. Welcome to the party, pal :-) I still think it's a hell of a lot better than being not smart and saddled with those problems, as guilty as I sometimes feel for not "living up to my potential". I'd probably be homeless or barely making ends meet while bouncing between minimum wage jobs, instead of living really well with shockingly little effort. My deficiencies are very frustrating and trigger lots of negative rumination when I think about what might have been if I'd had just the right person take notice early on and intervene in just the right ways—until I remind myself how much worse it could be, which is a whole damn lot worse. > I'm one of eleven kids- I was the 'smart one' and what an absolute drag that title was and is. The title still sticks despite having a brother with multiple award winning plays, another brother being a successful serial entrepreneur, and sisters with published books. Ah, a member of Salinger's Glass family, I see. ;-)
zarzavat 5y ago
There's only a very small number of exceptional people who are so smart that they just understand everything without effort. Terry Tao comes to mind. Everybody else has to pick and choose what they understand, most "very smart" people are still only very smart within a certain domain. This is more of a reflection of the richness of our world rather than the limitations of the human mind. In Ancient Greece, it was possible for polymaths to exist, people who could contribute to the many disciplines that existed then. Then, Poincare has the title of "the last universalist" because of his contributions to many areas of mathematics. Now, no such generalist can exist, everything requires specialisation. But that is a good thing. It means that human knowledge is incredibly rich.
- manquer 5y ago
  Depends on how you see it . Yes you are right in sense that, in the ancient the number of educated people -> scholars -> professionals who could dedicate the life to research was small. It was far easier (easier than today not easy itself) to be able to dabble in many topics. [1] [2] As you say much of what can be researched by a general philosopher who dabbles in many fields is already done, today to go further in any one field you will need to dedicate your life to it in mathematics or physics or other older fields of research. That does not mean there are less generalists today. There are plenty of generalists in younger/newer fields like it was in math or physics back in those days . Generalist scientists like Dr Lovelock was possible in the 60s. Generalist computer scientists was common till not that long ago. Generalist programmers were(are) there when I started in the industry, today to hire proper "full stack" developer is getting harder! Point is generalists or specialization is always there, just the fields where it can happen keep changing. --- [1] We have to remember many of them were also institutions which they were only the head of, rather than only individual contributors, so attribution could be more to their school than them necessarily individually. [2] A lot of the early work by ancient scholars was more documentation and formalization of somewhat known items than discovery or invention in the modern sense
dclowd9901 5y ago
Sheesh this feels familiar. I always feel just a step under the folks I talk to who are smart, always missing something.

hans1729 5y ago

>Being not smart at all usually also means you are ignorant to what you don't know, that life has its merits, Repetitive jobs don't bore you, and happiness comes from simpler joys in life. I wouldn't mind living that way at all. You're mixing up all kinds of unrelated things here. As does PG. Whats smartness? Going by Joscha Bach, it's the ability to reach your goals, as opposed to intelligence, your ability to make models. Wether repetitive work bores you isn't a matter of intelligence or smartness, however it does correlate significantly with cognitive functions (Jung). The then following paragraph seems projective to me, generalizations are just all over the place; thats just not how it works, neither from a neuro- nor from a psychological perspective. It doesn't matter wether you're intellectual middle or high brow, you will always be an idiot because you'll always be residing in a brain, being bound to its constraints of focus and attention. the notion of absolute intelligence that you imply when relating to "being a bit clever is the worst of the lot" seems off to me. >I would happily trade to being exactly perceived as I am or less and forgo all the money and praise if I didn't also be saddled with expectations of coming up with solutions all the time. You're contradicting yourself: first you say that the general population doesn't get what being smart implies, and then you say that the general population expects you to deliver on what being smart implies Sorry if this came off hostile, it wasn't meant so in any way. I just can't relate to these absolute notions and would strongly suggest you to read into psychology and neuroscience

mach1ne 5y ago
You lost me at the last sentence. (Jk, actually at Joscha Bach). The thing is, there is no consensus on what intelligence or smartness or any concept adjacent is. The layman notion is indeed wrong. But reading psychology and neuroscience will only put you deeper into this misery, as the theories proposed have shaky foundations and contradict each other. I guess that the brain being a complex system there might not be one or multiple attributes of intelligence; just different behaviours.
- breck 5y ago
  > I guess that the brain being a complex system there might not be one or multiple attributes of intelligence; just different behaviours I just ordered “Society of Mind” by Minsky. I spent some time this year working on multi agent simulations, then started wondering about the individual as really an apartment building of agents, and then started looking for the prior art, and found that book. This will probably be a dead end like so many before but that’s the current thread I’m on in my understanding of the complex system that is the brain.
manquer 5y ago
I don't think anything you said is hostile. Perhaps I should have redrafted it better given that nature of of topic, I should have expected to be misunderstood a bit. --- Firstly Caveat Lector: Yes generalization is a natural hazard of this topic and I am guilty as everyone else on this thread, we(and PG) are drawing conclusions basis anecdotal personal experiences and generalizing that obviously may not hold. Perhaps I should have called out explicitly, I assumed that is already implicitly clear in this topic. Everything I say[1] in this kind of topic is almost always a opinion or a best a theory. ---- The scale to me[2]: Not being smart[3] means everyone assumes you are their level or below them. A "little bit smart" means when some(many) people assume you know better than them. Crazy smart is people I cannot understand and are way smarter than I am. I am not saying general population, I am saying it is difficult to comprehend how much smarter[2] anyone else for any person independent of their own personal levels that is by kind of basic limitation of not being as smart as them, if you could understand the gap you would probably as smart as well. It doesn't matter if the first person is super smart already and other person is even smarter. This has an effect that people inherently under or overestimate[4] what the other person is capable of, that is what am alluding to. I don't have a knowledge on neuroscience to comment on that, however I absolutely do not have any interest in reading anymore psychology or debate with amateurs / professionals on it, my experience[5] interacting with the field : it is filled with pseudo-science (Yes including big names like Jung), every conventional term has always has different professional meaning which layman are expected to know fluently to discuss anything related, evidence/studies for many widely held theories is usually small sampled studies and typically math is at best basic linear regression models conflating correlation and causation . Psychology and Economics are two fields I consider a lot of waste of time trying to study for non professionals [6], Metaphysics or philosophy at least is fully abstract( like Math?), this mixing of reality with pretty weak science[7] makes a pretty bad combination. I understand that may makes me ignorant in some eyes. Sadly a lot of economic and workplace policy is determined by influential schools of thought in both fields, as everybody is affected by policy everyone has(should have) a opinion . ---- P.S. I didn't intend come across as aggressive/harsh or snide, but trying to be specific can come across has not being polite and snide, I am not that a gifted a writer(and English is not my first language) to write the same intent and make it sound better, apologies if it did not come out well. ---- [1] For that matter anyone else says including professionals, I can only claim for myself though. [2] This may not apply to others, I am not a professional to be able to generalize it, I am just sharing my anecdotal version. [3] Smart here and all other terms I am using is common sense definitions, kind of similar to "I will know it when I see it" obscenity definition by Potter in the Roth test. I don't have any expertise or interest in framing in formal narrow terms [4] In my experience [5] I can only talk about my personal experience, all of these are generalizations, am sure will have dozens of exceptions or completely opposite view points backed with solid evidence. It is statement of opinion not fact. [6] You( and the world) may a different opinion on this, I am not stating it as what everyone should also see it as, just how I see it, and I am fine not holding a consensus view [7] In my view

Aperocky 5y ago

> Repetitive jobs don't bore you, and happiness comes from simpler joys in life. I wouldn't mind living that way at all. As much as I sometime would want to be the cat that I owned, I enjoy much more about actually understanding the world around me (physically). Still bound to flesh and dopamine for happiness, but it's about the best deal we have on Earth right now.

mrkstu 5y ago

So much this... I'm one of eleven kids- I was the 'smart one' and what an absolute drag that title was and is. The title still sticks despite having a brother with multiple award winning plays, another brother being a successful serial entrepreneur, and sisters with published books. I've watched them succeed while I didn't finish college due to ADHD driving me to distraction. Luckily I have the computer skills requisite to be a successful network architect- but I'm quite aware I could have been a surgeon, a constitutional lawyer, a good to great political commentator or a quant if I had that next bit of mental concentration and memory. I'm very aware of that gap and it grinds in the gears pretty continually now that I'm older and firmly entrenched in a career- what a bit of ADHD meds at the right time in my life would have meant to allow that potential to be unlocked. To see those I was on the debate team with or in the same book clubs or Latin class being able to step up to the next level and build fairly continually rather than fighting against their mental shortcomings. But really, in the end, I still have that bit more access to curiosity and the deeper things that come with that curiosity- I was commenting to my daughters in the car the other day that the acceleration they felt in the car pushing them back in their seats was functionally equivalent to gravity. That they are constantly accelerating towards the earth, which is what keeps them connected to the ground. That kind of thinking, though in many ways generic and obvious, is probably not a thing any of my siblings would say and an important part of how I think and approach the world- and not something I would trade to step down into for a bit more oblivious contentment.

handrous 5y ago
> I've watched them succeed while I didn't finish college due to ADHD driving me to distraction. Luckily I have the computer skills requisite to be a successful network architect- but I'm quite aware I could have been a surgeon, a constitutional lawyer, a good to great political commentator or a quant if I had that next bit of mental concentration and memory. Welcome to the party, pal :-) I still think it's a hell of a lot better than being not smart and saddled with those problems, as guilty as I sometimes feel for not "living up to my potential". I'd probably be homeless or barely making ends meet while bouncing between minimum wage jobs, instead of living really well with shockingly little effort. My deficiencies are very frustrating and trigger lots of negative rumination when I think about what might have been if I'd had just the right person take notice early on and intervene in just the right ways—until I remind myself how much worse it could be, which is a whole damn lot worse. > I'm one of eleven kids- I was the 'smart one' and what an absolute drag that title was and is. The title still sticks despite having a brother with multiple award winning plays, another brother being a successful serial entrepreneur, and sisters with published books. Ah, a member of Salinger's Glass family, I see. ;-)

zarzavat 5y ago

There's only a very small number of exceptional people who are so smart that they just understand everything without effort. Terry Tao comes to mind. Everybody else has to pick and choose what they understand, most "very smart" people are still only very smart within a certain domain. This is more of a reflection of the richness of our world rather than the limitations of the human mind. In Ancient Greece, it was possible for polymaths to exist, people who could contribute to the many disciplines that existed then. Then, Poincare has the title of "the last universalist" because of his contributions to many areas of mathematics. Now, no such generalist can exist, everything requires specialisation. But that is a good thing. It means that human knowledge is incredibly rich.

manquer 5y ago
Depends on how you see it . Yes you are right in sense that, in the ancient the number of educated people -> scholars -> professionals who could dedicate the life to research was small. It was far easier (easier than today not easy itself) to be able to dabble in many topics. [1] [2] As you say much of what can be researched by a general philosopher who dabbles in many fields is already done, today to go further in any one field you will need to dedicate your life to it in mathematics or physics or other older fields of research. That does not mean there are less generalists today. There are plenty of generalists in younger/newer fields like it was in math or physics back in those days . Generalist scientists like Dr Lovelock was possible in the 60s. Generalist computer scientists was common till not that long ago. Generalist programmers were(are) there when I started in the industry, today to hire proper "full stack" developer is getting harder! Point is generalists or specialization is always there, just the fields where it can happen keep changing. --- [1] We have to remember many of them were also institutions which they were only the head of, rather than only individual contributors, so attribution could be more to their school than them necessarily individually. [2] A lot of the early work by ancient scholars was more documentation and formalization of somewhat known items than discovery or invention in the modern sense

dclowd9901 5y ago

Sheesh this feels familiar. I always feel just a step under the folks I talk to who are smart, always missing something.