4 ms·

You could have specialised intelligence and be clueless about everything else, including evaluating your ability. Intelligence doesn't beget humility. Nobel di

You could have specialised intelligence and be clueless about everything else, including evaluating your ability. Intelligence doesn't beget humility. Nobel disease is a thing[0]; Linus Pauling is possibly the most famous example and the cause of people taking too much vitamin C until this day. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

dumpsterdiver 3y ago
> Intelligence doesn't beget humility. I completely disagree. Imo, a truly intelligent person understands well that they cannot carry the world upon their shoulders, and from that realization they are humbled.
- simiones 3y ago
  By that criterion though, people like Edsger Dijkstra or Stephen Hawking would not be considered truly intelligent people. I think many would consider such a definition bizarre.
  - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
    Why would the people you mentioned be considered unintelligent by that criteria? Are you suggesting that they are not humbled when faced with the fact that the world will continue rotating without them?
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Citation may be needed for both of our statements, because my recollection from reading Hawking's book and other things is that he had a sense of humility about things he didn't understand, just like any good scientist must lest they lead to incorrect conclusions.
candiodari 3y ago
This is in contrast to research on the subject. Intelligence is one of the very few psychological properties that's universal. A smart person is smart. Doesn't matter the subject. Of course that doesn't mean they know everything. It means that either they are smart and know a lot about a field OR can become knowledgeable a lot about a field in relatively little time. This does also mean the reverse: expertise in a field does not actually require intelligence. It just works a lot faster if you have it. But being "dumb" does not place an upper limit on how capable you can be in a field, you'll just have to work longer to get there.

dumpsterdiver 3y ago

> Intelligence doesn't beget humility. I completely disagree. Imo, a truly intelligent person understands well that they cannot carry the world upon their shoulders, and from that realization they are humbled.

simiones 3y ago
By that criterion though, people like Edsger Dijkstra or Stephen Hawking would not be considered truly intelligent people. I think many would consider such a definition bizarre.
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago
  Why would the people you mentioned be considered unintelligent by that criteria? Are you suggesting that they are not humbled when faced with the fact that the world will continue rotating without them?
- freedomben 3y ago
  Citation may be needed for both of our statements, because my recollection from reading Hawking's book and other things is that he had a sense of humility about things he didn't understand, just like any good scientist must lest they lead to incorrect conclusions.

candiodari 3y ago

This is in contrast to research on the subject. Intelligence is one of the very few psychological properties that's universal. A smart person is smart. Doesn't matter the subject. Of course that doesn't mean they know everything. It means that either they are smart and know a lot about a field OR can become knowledgeable a lot about a field in relatively little time. This does also mean the reverse: expertise in a field does not actually require intelligence. It just works a lot faster if you have it. But being "dumb" does not place an upper limit on how capable you can be in a field, you'll just have to work longer to get there.