5 ms·
I was always told that I was very smart and, at least when it came to computers, I was generally better than every one around me. I never had to try very hard
by hvs 17y ago
I was always told that I was very smart and, at least when it came to computers, I was generally better than every one around me. I never had to try very hard in school to get mediocre grades, and never felt the need to try harder.
Then I went to a top university in Computer Science. I was suddenly surrounded by people that were orders of magnitude better at computer science than I was. I had to study for hours to understand something they seemed to understand implicitly. It took two years of struggling to finally reach a point where I considered myself "good" at computer science. After that, it came fairly easily but I still had to work much harder than my friends who did it effortlessly.
I learned over time that I am fairly smart. Not off the charts smart, but I've got my strengths. I still have to work harder than those in the top of my field, but I'm certainly on the down slope of the bell curve.
But the most important thing that I've learned is that it doesn't matter how smart you think you are. There will always be those more or less smart than you. What's important is what you do with it, and how hard you work to achieve what you want.
- cperciva 17y agoThere will always be those more or less smart than you. Subject to the (entirely reasonable, I believe) presumption that humanity is finite, a lack of maximal and minimal elements implies that "is smarter than" is not a strict partial ordering. (All finite partially-ordered sets have maximal and minimal elements.) This seems profoundly counterintuitive to me; both the asymmetry and transitivity of the "is smarter than" relation seem almost axiomatic (and the irreflexivity is indisputable). It seems to me that there must be thousands of individuals who are maximally smart -- each of them, naturally, incomparable to the others.
- roundsquare 17y agoFirst of all... thats not the point. That statement wasn't meant as an absolute truism as much as something most people should keep in mind lest they get too cocky. Secondly, even for someone X who is maximally smart, the statement "Y is smarter than X" can be true if its in a particular context. E.g. take two people who are maximally smart... there no one smarter than X in math (or whatever) and no one smarter than Y in history. Then X is smarter than Y and Y is smarter than X... depending on how you use the word. Edit: So long as no one is maximumly smart.
- JoeAltmaier 17y agoSmarts, even in one subject, are multi-dimensional. High-school seniors that play football can test-score the same after a season of head-bashing as before, but they take longer to complete the test. Just as smart, but changed too. Timed intelligence tests look for only fast-smart for instance.
- hvs 17y agoCompared to six billion people, I don't think you have to worry too much about being, or meeting too many of those people.
- andreyf 17y agoboth the asymmetry and transitivity of the "is smarter than" relation seem almost axiomatic Hah, you can't be serious! Look around you - asymmetry is so painfully obvious that even pop theories propose to split intelligence into "book smarts", "street smarts", "social smarts", etc. In reality, I don't think "smart" is a word that makes much sense, outside of the context of signaling social status (pIQ).
- tel 17y agoIt makes a ton of sense when if you concede that every single time you say it (well, really, say anything) it's done in context. You rarely say someone is "smart, without qualification" and even if you did it really absolutely means something more like "smart in most of the ways I admire and have observed that person performing". Which is really total agreement with your point. "Smart" is as much a partial ordering as "friendly" is, for a lot of the same reasons.
- cperciva 17y agoLook around you - asymmetry is so painfully obvious that even pop theories propose to split intelligence into "book smarts", "street smarts", "social smarts", etc. I don't see the connection. Asymmetry in the relation "is smarter than" simply means that it is impossible to have both "X is smarter than Y" and "Y is smarter than X" (for X != Y). In the context of individuals of incomparable intellect, it is inappropriate to say that either is smarter than the other -- never mind that they are both smarter than each other.
- andreyf 17y agoI think I was considering a looser meaning of "smart", in the common language sense of "I'm smarter than you regarding dating, you're smarter than me regrading math". That pop theory removes the intuitive asymmetry by partitioning "smart" into supposedly asymmetric subrelations - "books smarts", etc. Each part of this partition is asymmetric.
- zackattack 17y agoCan you elaborate about intelligence in the context of signaling social status please? And provide links to books/reading? I am very interested in this
- krakensden 17y agoIs modeling humanity as finite really the right way to go? There's always a stream of new humanity coming in, and old humanity dying off. Not to mention the way you change as you age- even if you're maximally smart at 16 (which everyone is, of course) eventually you won't be.
- aristus 17y ago"...there must be thousands of individuals who are maximally smart..." I think that's the core truth of "genius". Melville put it, "Genius all over the world stands hand in hand, and one shock of recognition runs the whole circle round". Joseph Campbell, Isamu Noguchi, Martha Graham, and Rudy Arnheim were all geniuses in very different fields, but they were also drawn to each other in friendship & collaboration. They can't compare to each other on any scale, but somehow shared something in common.
- pbhjpbhj 17y agoSurely there is only a single individual who is maximally smart - I'd imagine you'd need an identical brain to be identically smart; assuming that (as is normal) even speed of application of knowledge is measured as part of smartness. Now define "smartness".
- Confusion 17y agoI was suddenly surrounded by people that were orders of magnitude better at computer science than I was. I had to study for hours to understand something they seemed to understand implicitly. I think seemed is the key word here. Many people that are good at what they do give the impression that it's a breeze for them. When examining it closer, it isn't: they spend plenty of time studying. I've never really gotten to the bottom of it, but the difference seems to be that they simply talk less about the studying and more about the material itself, which gives the impression they know their stuff very well, even though they studied hard as well.
- asciilifeform 17y ago> they spend plenty of time studying A comforting half-truth.
- Periodic 17y agoI bet most people don't talk about their studying, and if you don't see the person studying, what stands out is their ability. So if the person goes home and spends twice as much time studying as you do, you still only see the part where they demonstrate their knowledge. If they studied ahead, they'll look like they know everything when really they are working twice as hard as you. Basically, we humans are really bad at judging things, particularly abstract things like "intelligence". Heck, we can't even really define it yet. Just get your results, and be happy with those.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]