May 29, 2005

• The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they’re wrong. Hmmm.
• This is great. Has anyone read his book on project managment yet?
• Well, you're all wrong. And I'm right. So gimme the keys to the Winnebago. I'm outta here.
• No you're not. (That'll be a pound, please)
• Ethelyne, you consistnely post thought-provoking thingies. Please keep it up.
• And natch, I spell your name wrong. So please continue, ethylene.
• This author's definition of "smart" isn't the same as mine. He says: The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they’re wrong. That's a problem of arrogant and bullheaded people, whether they are smart or not. Smart people, or at least those whose brains have good first gears, use their speed in thought to overpower others. While smart people can be quick thinkers, more often they are deep thinkers instead, and they are not usually fast talkers. Really this article is why people defend bad ideas. Smart or not.
• Surely you've had the experience of debating an issue, perhaps with a sig other, who fails to counter a point of yours with the obvious or best response. This doesn't win satisfaction. It's disappointing. A good argument, like a good game of chess, is one where people do not make unforced errors. In that way, you don't bully your opponent in either good chess or good argument.
• Strawman article. If you have smart people defending bad ideas, it's because that idea isn't as bad as you've been trained to believe (or the person sn't as smart as you've been led to believe). Smart people don't "like to be right", they like to be smart. Their decision to not casually dismiss something that you did casually dismiss doesn't create the scenerio "smart people defending bad ideas". Smart people like to be thorough. They have firsthand experience with the fact that counterintuitive ideas are often the most correct. If they're still defending the "bad" idea, that's not a mistake on their part, but a failure on your part to provide a thorough proof.
• Well, in EST they used to say that people would rather be right than happy, and the goal really is to try to be happy rather than right.
• Personally I'd find it hard to do anything if I was in an elevator with 15 opera singers screaming 15 different operas, in 15 different languages, in falsetto, directly at me.
• Kill the sopranos first.
• Related: Why Smart People Make Bad Money Mistakes
• Smart people don't "like to be right", they like to be smart This points to a weakness in the article. Who exactly are these "smart" people? If he means those with high IQs, then it is true there are plenty who espouse bad ideas. I've known high-IQ people who believe in everything from astrology to tarot.
• Knickerbocker and others claiming strawman: I disagree. And I'm smarter than you are: 1570 on the SATs. Haha! I win. Rematch? I win again! Seriously, though-- you're just redefining anyone who falls victim to stupidity as 'not-smart.' But if everyone falls victim sometimes (and I think they do) then there are no smart people left. I think the author's definition is basically 'anyone who is believed to be smart' which might be a bad one in general but that's who the essay's about. I think it's a good essay, in any case, not least for the final section about dealing with irritating 'smart' people.
• performing on paraphrased voltaire, to be entertaining over exact, i did want to see who would debate this-- who calls themselves smart in the first place? who uses smart anymore anyway, besides UKers and the UKesque when talking about style or ouchies? say the word over and over smacks of a muted epithet have some old jokes instead in preview, good show exppii i attribute my nearly perfect math score to being on hallucenigenics at the time
• ah, subjective semantics, the well trod default battleground-- and cynn: in small part i've been posting more in a glimpse of a plea from path somewhere and monkeys in general and of course in supplication to the gods of procrastination now where's my embossed invite to summer at beeswacky's? *currently lacking the smarts to put together a decent grocery list as i head out the door*
• There are people, call them smart or not, who do want to be "right" as opposed to wanting to be factually correct. I have in my lifetime had the misfortune to be mixed up with one, an absolute nightmare, who wanted to be right more than anything else. It is my now good fortune that that person is now on the otherside of the planet. You can argue IQ or SATs, but certain powerful alpha individuals are so ego invested as to needing to be right that they will destroy their and others lives rather than be wrong. Trust me, I was married to one.
• I think the author's definition is basically 'anyone who is believed to be smart' which might be a bad one in general but that's who the essay's about. I think that's the author's definition also, and I wrote my comment based on that definition (I did have a caveat in parenthesis, but the main point I was trying to say on the outside of the parenthesis). The author's argument is that people who are believed to be smart have an irrational need to "be right". That's where I'm calling shenanigans. Not on his definition of smart, but what he claims is an inherant characteristic of smart people. Although I believe that there exist people who have the need to "be right", I don't think it is the same set of people that are thought of as smart. Matter of fact, I'd assert that there's a smaller percentage of smart people with this need than the percentage of non-smarts with the need. I think there's a much better explanation. Smart people are bound to have answers to questions that are different than the norm. This is what differentiates them from the norm. They stand out from the masses because they answer differently than the masses, and their manner of being different is by being correct when the masses are not. When the masses get an answer wrong, and the smart people don't, the masses wonder what's wrong with the smart people— from their perspective, it's the smart people who got it wrong. Look how many people answered their way. It looks like smart people defending a bad idea when it's really nonsmarts failing recognizes the merit of the idea. There's three point at where the sentence "Smart people do stupid things" can fail: A smart person/ did/ a stupid thing. My emphasis is on the last two: either "do" is wrong and the smart person never commited the act, or "a stupid thing" is wrong, and the action isn't as stupid as is commonly believed. The author would explain Galileo's geocentric model as Galileo's desire to validate himself. I would explain Galileo by saying that he may be right. The author would say that the reason Einstein hit himself in the head with a hammer so much is because he had a need to be right about hammers being soft. I would explain it by saying that Einstein never did such thing. The thing about the author's explanation is that his tells the masses that they are really smarter than smart people. The masses love explanations that shift the blame away from themselves, and everybody enjoys being called smart. I actually think the purpose of the article is that. It was written with the intention of making people feel good, whixh makes people think the article is good, and the writer good.
• Whoa that's big. Oops.
• Life became so much simpler once I realized I was a damn fool.
• beeswacky, to be smart enough to realise that you are a damn fool is pretty smart enough (^_^) Mr. Knickerbocker, good comments! I feel much the same way about the article. It's a rather oblique ego-boosting attempt by the author, but also a subtle attempt to get people to "get along". He may decry that homogenuous groups have narrower ideas, but at the same time encourages groups with disparate personalities to integrate rather than bang things out. Both actions have their benefits, but to subvert one for the other would actually make a group less effective, not more.
• I don't know what that picture of a sandwich was doing there, but it made me hungry. Looked like it was made with ciabatta bread. Mmm... *drools* What? Smart people, bad ideas? Who cares -- we're talkin' sandwiches!
• Life became so much simpler once I realized I was a damn fool. Same here. In fact, I so dumb I not read article before post comment. Koko like post many comment.
• Category Fools, for one hundred dollars. Complete the phrase: There are fool, damn fools, and _________________
• Knickerbocker, how would you explain this example: Einstein, later in life, refused to accept quantum theory despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Was this stupid or not?

• There are fools, damn fools, and _________________

  statisticians?
• You know, I was thinking the same thing: blah blah strongly held opinions blah blah ego investment blah bla--- hey! That one mighty fine looking sandwitch! And then I broke for lunch.
• This is an interesting discussion for a weblog like this. It's just my observation, but it seems to me that just about everyone on monkeyfilter must be smarter than average, based on the level of discussion. He has some good points. Smart!= wise. Smart people are not right because they are smart - they have to learn and think just like everyone else. Lots of smart people are wrong lots of the time, just like everyone else (no higher a percentage). They do have an easier time remembering things, and mental skills which give great benefit in some areas of life (education, thinking theorectically, etc), but not all. And people are smart in different fields, and different amounts. I do give people more credence in their areas of expertise (though not uncritical credence), because they have spent more time thinking and learning about that thing than I have, and have access to more knowledge from which to make a judgement. That said, often when I find smart people disagreeing on fundamental things, it's sometimes because their evidence is different, but more often because their principles and basic questions are different. They aren't answering the same questions, they don't value the same things. So they can be both "right" in their judgements while totally disagreeing, because they aren't talking about the same thing. On preview: Please don't pick on the statisticians - it is a remarkable science. It's not the statisticians who bend statistics (actually, they hate it when people do), it's the politicians and reporters anactivists of all stripes who either misunderstand the stats or purposely mislead people about their significance. Statisticians take their work very seriously, and really do want to get at the reality of situations. It is a kind of public trust - and I've never met an actual statistician who would break it. "Statisticians may be dull people, but they have their moments." And yes, that sandwich looks so tasty. There is a bakery down the road from me that makes ciabatta bread - and paninis with melted mozzerella cheese and tomatoes and pesto. Mmmmmmm.
• Now we're talkin' sandwiches!
• jb got it! While the author starts out with "smart people want to be right", he does provide reasons whey they can be wrong and are hard to persuade otherwise: arrogance, lack of data points on a particular topic, upbringing, education, etc. If you'll notice, all that also applies to not-so-smart people, as well - even (especially?) the "want to be right" thing. Seems to me that he defines "smart" people are those who percieve themself as smart and have the strength of personality to persuade others that are when in a confrontational situation. What you'd see at problem-solving meeting in almost any corporation. But, on a more homespun basis, "smart" becomes more nebulous. Does it mean "intellectual", "did well on SATs" (good at taking tests,) "street smart", "well educated", "really adept in one or more areas of expertise"...? And, do you see "wise" as being different than being "smart" (if my education/iq/intelligence are dull normal, but I've observed enougn "data points" over a long lifetime that I can still give you good advice on some limited topics, am I smart, wise, or both - or neither?"
• neither. I keed, I keed.
• There's definitely different kinds of smart ... one who is extremely intellectual can have an appalling lack of common sense, to the point of not being able to take care of themselves. Mr. Koko has told me tales of brilliant professors of philosophy who would wear the same clothes every day if their wives didn't intervene. Mr. Koko is one of these scary-smart people you don't want to be on the wrong side of an argument with, because he will win. And it's not because he needs to be right, it's because he's already considered every angle and remembers everything he's ever read about it. If you're right, you'll have an engaging discussion, but if you're wrong, he'll tear your argument to ribbons. I've never known him to argue a point that I felt was fundamentally wrong. It's what I love and hate about him :-) Also, I'm the only reason he has clean clothes to wear.
• Some smart people are rhetorically gifted, some are not. I have no problem talking, but I'm not very good rhetorically - I tend to ramble. Up against a seasoned debater, I wilt, whether I'm "right" or not.
• (sorry - I meant to write some people of any kind.) Koko - I think I have a friend like your spouse. I don't argue with her any more, because she can just take it down : )
• It's kind of annoying, isn't it? On the flip side, he's like a walking encyclopedia. I don't have to read anymore!
• Koko, I think we're married to the same man. If not, I suggest a Battledome of Wits.
• I already read Sternberg's book and others on the same topic. There are plenty of psychological shortcuts that people take for various reasons that lead them to defending 'bad' ideas. If anyone is interesting in reading easily digestible psychology texts on a variety of subjects, then Sternberg is a good start. I am not a psychology student, but I have found his writing to be easily understandable and insightful.
• I suggest a Battledome of Wits I'll have him greased and sent to the arena. The winner gets his freedom.
• I shall sell popcorn and various refreshments.
• Two tickets please.
• Beer here! And one of those sandwiches!
• I'll take bets, odds currently at two to one each way!
• onion rings!
• I like fried onion rings. Just don't use the same grease as Koko did.
• Nothing wrong with a little hot man-grease on your fried snacks. Tastes like victory!