Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-dislike-really-smart-leaders/
335 comments
I don't have military experience and I will stop short of saying I wish I did because I think that does a disservice to both of us. What I will say is that the vets I have worked with have been excellent contributors and leaders. I work in a place that values strong leadership and makes a point of hiring veterans. It would be easy to dismiss that as public relations fluff but I truly believe vets make an invaluable contribution to a company.
The theory is that Israel punches above it's weight class in the tech/startup sector at least in part because most everybody there has at least some military training.
Interesting. I would speculate the high average IQ is a more significant factor.
Any source for "high average IQ"?
It's a reference to the notion that Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of something like 105, so have more 140+ IQs, and as such they are disproportionately represented in Nobel Prize winnings in the 20thC. Etc etc. I won't source for them (theres a Wiki article) since I think most of the variance can be accounted for by culture.
Thx
It's a culture that deeply values education, trust, and team-work within families, community, and country, all of which contribute to collective success in military, civilian, and business endeavors.
I have to ask...
Why did sailors try to drive through the closed base gate and test 440V circuits with their fingers?
Why did sailors try to drive through the closed base gate and test 440V circuits with their fingers?
I don't know. Why do we push files to production on a Friday evening? Why do we snipe hot-fixes into production via FTP? Because we are all crazy & lazy bums, I would guess.
> I don't know. Why do we push files to production on a Friday evening?
Because we worked for the whole week on it and now want that other people can see it on their weekend. Since we are so proud of our work and trust in its quality, we are willing to do an extra shift on the weekend, should problems occur.
Because we worked for the whole week on it and now want that other people can see it on their weekend. Since we are so proud of our work and trust in its quality, we are willing to do an extra shift on the weekend, should problems occur.
While I understand and have also myself been guilty of this, I have come to believe that this attitude is selfish and irresponsible.
The experience which gave me perspective was on a project at my previous job. I worked together with another highly passionate engineer and we made amazing progress over the course of a very short time.
The day before the demonstration of our results to our bosses, meant to serve as evaluation and retrospective for this project, we had reached all goals and the simulation was really robust and stable. However, when I came to work on the day itself, I found my colleague sitting at his desk, looking very tired. He'd been working through the night to get all the extra bells and whistles implemented. The demonstration was a disaster. Nothing worked, everything crashed. A lot of people were upset.
The experience which gave me perspective was on a project at my previous job. I worked together with another highly passionate engineer and we made amazing progress over the course of a very short time.
The day before the demonstration of our results to our bosses, meant to serve as evaluation and retrospective for this project, we had reached all goals and the simulation was really robust and stable. However, when I came to work on the day itself, I found my colleague sitting at his desk, looking very tired. He'd been working through the night to get all the extra bells and whistles implemented. The demonstration was a disaster. Nothing worked, everything crashed. A lot of people were upset.
Are you missing a /s?
Since this sounds very familiar I would venture that he's being serious.
I feel this is an extremely selfish attitude, as generally it's not just the one who pushed into production who has to do extra work on the weekend, and usually they are not willing to do extra work because someone's ego couldn't wait 2 more days.
Because higher ups forced us to?
Good use of metaphor.
> metaphor
Simile. Or analogy, perhaps.
... Is that kind of pedantic correction a sign of unlikable intelligence? :P
Simile. Or analogy, perhaps.
... Is that kind of pedantic correction a sign of unlikable intelligence? :P
if you have the monitoring in place, and you have done proper canarying, friday evenings are not terrible
Of course. You're more than welcome to risk your own weekend over trivialities. The rest of us only ask that you please keep us out of your plans.
You never were. And there was a reason for that. Maybe you are not the person to put his 150% on the line when needed. It is ok. You do not have to be. Then you get paid accordingly.
You also didnt ask what could prompt before weekend pushes. It could be money, reputation or or compliance. Certain projects are out of your control and you have to implement in weeks notice, or have a deadline imposed by laws. Some are losing revenue so each day you do not release you are bleeding money.
So please, by all means, take your weekend off, while i plan for worst cases and make it so that friday releases are "trivial and safe" to deploy. I do not have to use it, but if i do, i do not need you around, it will be mostly automated anyway.
You also didnt ask what could prompt before weekend pushes. It could be money, reputation or or compliance. Certain projects are out of your control and you have to implement in weeks notice, or have a deadline imposed by laws. Some are losing revenue so each day you do not release you are bleeding money.
So please, by all means, take your weekend off, while i plan for worst cases and make it so that friday releases are "trivial and safe" to deploy. I do not have to use it, but if i do, i do not need you around, it will be mostly automated anyway.
[deleted]
The problem isn't the day of the week but the fact that it is the day before time off.
If you work weekends then by all means push on Friday evening. However, don't push anything the before your next vacations.
If you work weekends then by all means push on Friday evening. However, don't push anything the before your next vacations.
and if you have someone else on call, Friday evenings are perfectly fine
:p
:p
If and when this happens, the pusher person usually is the oncall.
monitoring only helps detecting a problem.
and even with canarying there could still be a bad thing in production. it happened everywhere, even the big ones had akward problems. it's human to make errors, so if you do not have luck such a problem could occur on friday evening/night.
There is no doubt, but you see, there are legitimate reasons to do it.
yeah well I always do releases on friday and we have monitoring/canary. but sometimes a minor/major bug slips trough, but our customers only work from monday-friday and so it's not that big of a deal. and it barly happens and after that we add a regression test so that at least the same error won't happen again.
funnily most errors on our codebase happened in client side or sanitazion problems.
and the client side errors go away once we added all the types to typescript (we converted js to typescript and added any, so we still need to "correct" like 40% of our code base)
That is kind of my point. I believe over time, the monitoring gets solid enough that you can do abrelease anytime. I heard often teams not wanting to do a release, but i try to go towards "i can measure a good amount of metrics and slices that are important and can measure their impact in a controlled manner" which helps for friday releases, or any other release for that matter.
I dont do friday releases often, but if it comes to it, it is no brainer. I approach it pragmatically, and this helps people.
I dont do friday releases often, but if it comes to it, it is no brainer. I approach it pragmatically, and this helps people.
[deleted]
I’m glad someone else felt the need to ask. I did work on a computer with 480V into the rack and the electrical training they made us sit through scared the bejesus out of all of us. It was basically 4 hours of watching people get electrocuted with 480v+. A 480V arc flash is no joke[0]. The training had the desired effect: we played it absolutely by the book, the CPR-trained buddy system, the PPE, everything.
[0] https://youtu.be/-iClXrd50Z8 the helpful “ding” is the best part. At any rate, imagine take that on your arms or face.
[0] https://youtu.be/-iClXrd50Z8 the helpful “ding” is the best part. At any rate, imagine take that on your arms or face.
Some people do stuff just because they can. Some because of bad day and some because of thinking those doors are always open so just drive without paying attention.
Do you have examples or references for the types of charismatic speech and creative metaphors you used?
Charisma: if you like it, it's charisma, if you don't it's a sense of entitlement.
Metaphors: they're cooked up in the moment.
Metaphors: they're cooked up in the moment.
[deleted]
There could be something else at work here.
My father told me that con men preferred to go after smart people, like doctors. The reason is that smart people thought they were too smart to get conned, and hence were more gullible.
He was also an economist, and told me that there wasn't an economist born who could stand the idea that the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help".
And I've noticed many smart leaders who thought they were much smarter than they actually were, and didn't need to listen to others' advice, leading to some very poor decisions.
My father told me that con men preferred to go after smart people, like doctors. The reason is that smart people thought they were too smart to get conned, and hence were more gullible.
He was also an economist, and told me that there wasn't an economist born who could stand the idea that the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help".
And I've noticed many smart leaders who thought they were much smarter than they actually were, and didn't need to listen to others' advice, leading to some very poor decisions.
1. it's not smart men cons are after, it's overconfidence. most truly "smart" people admit uncertainty and exhibit healthy skepticism. doctors, like many professionals, tend to be rewarded for exhibiting overconfidence.
2. people tend to call decisions poor because they result in perceived bad outcomes (from the perspective of the person making the judgment), without considering the range of all possible outcomes (the number of which is bigger than our brains can cope with). if most outcomes would have been "bad" ones, then the decision made might have been the best one possible without necessarily leading to a "good" outcome. (many such misperceptions and misattributions are possible when judging decisions in hindsight)
we like to tell ourelves stories that put us at the top of the heap (or similarly put others "below" us), regardless of the truthiness of those stories.
2. people tend to call decisions poor because they result in perceived bad outcomes (from the perspective of the person making the judgment), without considering the range of all possible outcomes (the number of which is bigger than our brains can cope with). if most outcomes would have been "bad" ones, then the decision made might have been the best one possible without necessarily leading to a "good" outcome. (many such misperceptions and misattributions are possible when judging decisions in hindsight)
we like to tell ourelves stories that put us at the top of the heap (or similarly put others "below" us), regardless of the truthiness of those stories.
Also, smart-asses have money.
> the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help".
As if boom and bust business cycles aren't a thing in free markets. Or monopolies. Or monetary policy. Or externalized costs. Or tragedy of the commons.
That's just run of the mill anti-intellectualism.
As if boom and bust business cycles aren't a thing in free markets. Or monopolies. Or monetary policy. Or externalized costs. Or tragedy of the commons.
That's just run of the mill anti-intellectualism.
If putting economists in charge somehow curtails monopolies, externalised costs, tragedies of the commons and boom and bust business cycles then someone really should sit down and get that news out there. Nothing I've heard suggests economists outperform a healthy democratic process.
Monetary policy is one that is more up for debate - it seems reasonable that it can have a positive effect on gdp, but something has decoupled GDP from measures that actually effect people. I think that something is monetary policy, and note in passing that GDP was, prior to 1970, a much better proxy for energy/capita than it is now [1].
I watch the US economy with curiosity and note, for example, that core inflation, the central plank of US monetary policy, excludes basically anything I spend money on.
[1] EDIT: https://wilcoxen.maxwell.insightworks.com/pages/804.html
Monetary policy is one that is more up for debate - it seems reasonable that it can have a positive effect on gdp, but something has decoupled GDP from measures that actually effect people. I think that something is monetary policy, and note in passing that GDP was, prior to 1970, a much better proxy for energy/capita than it is now [1].
I watch the US economy with curiosity and note, for example, that core inflation, the central plank of US monetary policy, excludes basically anything I spend money on.
[1] EDIT: https://wilcoxen.maxwell.insightworks.com/pages/804.html
In healthy democracies politicians seek advice from economists for their policy proposals.
Or, usually, just seek the "expert" support from economists for validating policies that promote their and their backers interests...
So then, there must be a visible, provable correlation between economist activities and inequality.
Yes.
https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1429/19/142919512461...
The late 1970s were when neoliberal economic fundamentalism took over public policy.
The graph shows the effect on equality.
https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1429/19/142919512461...
The late 1970s were when neoliberal economic fundamentalism took over public policy.
The graph shows the effect on equality.
I don't see this as evidence that economists => inequality. Even if we accept the notion that economists are directly responsible for growing inequality, it's worth remembering that there are disagreements within their ranks.
I would argue this is when most economists lost influence in Washington, while a few like Art Laffer gained massive influence. The New Deal era prior to this was largely motivated by the work of noted economist John Maynard Keynes. Although the causality is debated, the New Deal was followed by recovery and economic growth. Economists gained influence in the public sphere because of the effectiveness, real or imagined, or "Keynesian" economic policy. These folks had lost sway in Washington by the early 70s due to the stagflation crisis[1] and the collapse of the "New Deal coalition" after the tumultuous 1968 presidential election.
The late 1970s was dominated by the ideas of economists like Art Laffer, who took an uncontroversial economic idea "tax revenue is maximized at some point between 0% and 100%" and turned it into "the tax revenue maximizing rate must be lower than our current rate" without presenting sufficient evidence for his claim. This was a convenient for some in Washington who already believed this to be true, and thus the "Laffer curve" was born. The following era of deregulation and lower taxes on the wealthy likely played a large role in increasing income inequality.
[1] The causes of stagflation are still debated, but I am convinced this was directly caused by the OPEC oil cartel using it's market power to quickly inflate the price of oil by 400%, creating a massive supply shock that started the stagflation spiral.
I would argue this is when most economists lost influence in Washington, while a few like Art Laffer gained massive influence. The New Deal era prior to this was largely motivated by the work of noted economist John Maynard Keynes. Although the causality is debated, the New Deal was followed by recovery and economic growth. Economists gained influence in the public sphere because of the effectiveness, real or imagined, or "Keynesian" economic policy. These folks had lost sway in Washington by the early 70s due to the stagflation crisis[1] and the collapse of the "New Deal coalition" after the tumultuous 1968 presidential election.
The late 1970s was dominated by the ideas of economists like Art Laffer, who took an uncontroversial economic idea "tax revenue is maximized at some point between 0% and 100%" and turned it into "the tax revenue maximizing rate must be lower than our current rate" without presenting sufficient evidence for his claim. This was a convenient for some in Washington who already believed this to be true, and thus the "Laffer curve" was born. The following era of deregulation and lower taxes on the wealthy likely played a large role in increasing income inequality.
[1] The causes of stagflation are still debated, but I am convinced this was directly caused by the OPEC oil cartel using it's market power to quickly inflate the price of oil by 400%, creating a massive supply shock that started the stagflation spiral.
>I don't see this as evidence that economists => inequality. Even if we accept the notion that economists are directly responsible for growing inequality, it's worth remembering that there are disagreements within their ranks.
It's not "economists => inequality" it's neoliberal economists (almost all of them today) => inequality"
It's not "economists => inequality" it's neoliberal economists (almost all of them today) => inequality"
In the US, our democratic process has delegated all these roles to regulatory agencies that are staffed with economists. The FTC, FCC, Justice Dept., etc. all employ many PhD economists. Whether their bosses and the politicians listen to their recommendations is another matter.
Could you explain more what your second paragraph means? I think I’m missing some background information. But, I’m really interested in what you have to say.
As for your last paragraph, which things in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index don’t you buy? I just just read though the list of items in the PCE, and it seems like stuff we all buy.
https://www.bea.gov/about/pdf/1106_ACM_PCE.pdf
Also, I’m not clear on how this is much different from what economists attempt to do: create models and test them with data.
As for your last paragraph, which things in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index don’t you buy? I just just read though the list of items in the PCE, and it seems like stuff we all buy.
https://www.bea.gov/about/pdf/1106_ACM_PCE.pdf
Also, I’m not clear on how this is much different from what economists attempt to do: create models and test them with data.
First I’ll address inflation measures as they apply to me, then I’ll just air some fringe views that hopefully you will enjoy reading. EDIT And thirdly I'll extensively change what was written because I'm pretty sure it misrepresented the monetarist theory of inflation.
I’m happy to be corrected on this, but ‘inflation’ in the US is usually the CPI-U series; less Food and Energy when the Federal Reserve sets monetary policy; not the PCE with which I am unfamiliar. I got weights from [1], which suggest 25% weighting to a theoretical owners rent component which in reality I don’t pay because I don’t have a mortgage. Obviously the index can't apply to everyone, happens not to apply to me. I would love to see a comparison of CPI weights vs average expenditure, which might make me feel a lot better, but I don't know where to find that info.
As for elaborating on the monetary policy part, I broadly subscribe to the idea that a 10% increase in the amount money should link to a comparable reduction in the value of a unit of currency. That is basically using a personal inflation rate that is the rate of increase in the M2.
The core inflation rate is <3%, the inflation rate that I expect is 5%. This means either I am wrong (popular view) or that the inflation rate is measuring something that isn't very interesting. I favour 2 with the caveat of accepting inflation in asset prices as inflation which seems to be the big break with mainstream thought.
The big downside of this is all the usual stats become questionable – particularly ‘real GDP growth’, which I mentally downgrade by 2%. A lot of monetarist inflation types end up looking to measures like energy/capita, which is theoretically a measure of real wealth that can be used without relying on understanding inflation calculations. I like that measure for my own reasons.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/home.htm
I’m happy to be corrected on this, but ‘inflation’ in the US is usually the CPI-U series; less Food and Energy when the Federal Reserve sets monetary policy; not the PCE with which I am unfamiliar. I got weights from [1], which suggest 25% weighting to a theoretical owners rent component which in reality I don’t pay because I don’t have a mortgage. Obviously the index can't apply to everyone, happens not to apply to me. I would love to see a comparison of CPI weights vs average expenditure, which might make me feel a lot better, but I don't know where to find that info.
As for elaborating on the monetary policy part, I broadly subscribe to the idea that a 10% increase in the amount money should link to a comparable reduction in the value of a unit of currency. That is basically using a personal inflation rate that is the rate of increase in the M2.
The core inflation rate is <3%, the inflation rate that I expect is 5%. This means either I am wrong (popular view) or that the inflation rate is measuring something that isn't very interesting. I favour 2 with the caveat of accepting inflation in asset prices as inflation which seems to be the big break with mainstream thought.
The big downside of this is all the usual stats become questionable – particularly ‘real GDP growth’, which I mentally downgrade by 2%. A lot of monetarist inflation types end up looking to measures like energy/capita, which is theoretically a measure of real wealth that can be used without relying on understanding inflation calculations. I like that measure for my own reasons.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/home.htm
Thanks for the reply.
I didn't know what 'core inflation' meant so had to look at the wikipedia page. Assuming that wikipedia is correct, it looks like the fed has used PCE since 2000. Apparently, CPI is mainly used for social security benefits. CPI weighs 'shelter' costs as 40% of total whereas PCE weighs it at 18%. To test out their values, I viewed the 2016 value for DC (where I have a home and mortgage), and it looked relatively accurate. However, my mortgage for that property is less than 18% of my total expenses.
I'm kind of ignorant about monetary policy, so had to google some things. But, I don't follow your statement about the relationship between M2 and inflation. Are you saying that M2 should be directly related to inflation? I would expect that M2 would only have a moderate influence over inflation because prices are based on supply and demand, not how much money there is.
For instance, let's say this year there are 200 coins distributed evenly to 10 people. You produce 10 widgets, and each of the 10 people are willing to pay 10. You make the exchange and get 100 coins, and they're left with 10 each.
The next year someone new shows up and has 20 coins making the total money supply 220. You produce another 10 widgets, but only the new guy wants a widget (the others already have one). He is not willing to pay 10 coins, but you and him agree that he can pay 1 coin. Money supply went up, but prices went down. Then the following year, all 11 people want widgets, but you're way more efficient and are now producing 20. I'd expect prices to stay less than 10 but probably higher than 1 even though the money supply didn't change.
I'm probably wrong about all of this stuff, of course. But, either way, it seems complex and data intensive enough to require a specialist.
I didn't know what 'core inflation' meant so had to look at the wikipedia page. Assuming that wikipedia is correct, it looks like the fed has used PCE since 2000. Apparently, CPI is mainly used for social security benefits. CPI weighs 'shelter' costs as 40% of total whereas PCE weighs it at 18%. To test out their values, I viewed the 2016 value for DC (where I have a home and mortgage), and it looked relatively accurate. However, my mortgage for that property is less than 18% of my total expenses.
I'm kind of ignorant about monetary policy, so had to google some things. But, I don't follow your statement about the relationship between M2 and inflation. Are you saying that M2 should be directly related to inflation? I would expect that M2 would only have a moderate influence over inflation because prices are based on supply and demand, not how much money there is.
For instance, let's say this year there are 200 coins distributed evenly to 10 people. You produce 10 widgets, and each of the 10 people are willing to pay 10. You make the exchange and get 100 coins, and they're left with 10 each.
The next year someone new shows up and has 20 coins making the total money supply 220. You produce another 10 widgets, but only the new guy wants a widget (the others already have one). He is not willing to pay 10 coins, but you and him agree that he can pay 1 coin. Money supply went up, but prices went down. Then the following year, all 11 people want widgets, but you're way more efficient and are now producing 20. I'd expect prices to stay less than 10 but probably higher than 1 even though the money supply didn't change.
I'm probably wrong about all of this stuff, of course. But, either way, it seems complex and data intensive enough to require a specialist.
Bah, you're very convincing, I'm going to have to go away and reformulate what I'm upset about. I can see that I've been using the wrong terms for everything. I save a lot of money, and I can't construct a big-picture argument that satisfies me of how 5% increases in the money base aren't really bad for someone and I want to know who (I still think it is savers, but no longer have an argument for that). That being said, I now see that any issues I come up with fall completely outside GDP and inflation.
However, your 200 coins scenario is not very agreeable to me:
1) Minor point, there is an assumption of over capacity where the widget producer could presumably produce 9 spare widgets most years.
2) More subtle point, widgets require raw resources to produce. Ignoring the machine to make the widget, the actual widget is presumably made of stuff or in the case of a service, the cost is the stuff required to maintain the servicer's lifestyle. Your scenario has quietly assumed that there are sufficient resources for our purposes. I see the question on monetary policy as being ‘does this assist in the efficient allocation of resources’. I do accept that as correct, I don’t accept it as fundamentally relevant to what I think is important, because it hasn’t made reference to the resources used to produce the widgets (ie, what was the opportunity cost) and hence begs my question. The mechanics of the situation aren’t just the feelings of how much people want to pay, they are linked to resource availability vs willingness of market participants to work for what they want. It has made me understand why I thought inflation was irrelevant to my circumstances.
4) If a rational actor appears with excess currency and doesn't want to compete with other consumers for presently available resources, then they aren’t going to sit there cheerfully with 19 currency in their pocket. If they aren’t going to buy current resources, they will buy control of future resources. Otherwise it raises the question of to what end did they accept the new currency and why is it being created?
I'm going to have to stop there because my complaints need rebuilding, but I think I'll end up finding out what the name for asset-price inflation and properly learn about the velocity of money, but is since it isn't expressed in inflation then it must be competing for future resources which I expect to turn up in asset prices. If that formulation survives scrutiny, then something really interesting must be afoot to do with how future claims on resources will be settled.
Thanks again for your interest, this has been a very illuminating conversation for me that has reduced my ignorance of economics substantially and will improve my arguments in the future.
However, your 200 coins scenario is not very agreeable to me:
1) Minor point, there is an assumption of over capacity where the widget producer could presumably produce 9 spare widgets most years.
2) More subtle point, widgets require raw resources to produce. Ignoring the machine to make the widget, the actual widget is presumably made of stuff or in the case of a service, the cost is the stuff required to maintain the servicer's lifestyle. Your scenario has quietly assumed that there are sufficient resources for our purposes. I see the question on monetary policy as being ‘does this assist in the efficient allocation of resources’. I do accept that as correct, I don’t accept it as fundamentally relevant to what I think is important, because it hasn’t made reference to the resources used to produce the widgets (ie, what was the opportunity cost) and hence begs my question. The mechanics of the situation aren’t just the feelings of how much people want to pay, they are linked to resource availability vs willingness of market participants to work for what they want. It has made me understand why I thought inflation was irrelevant to my circumstances.
4) If a rational actor appears with excess currency and doesn't want to compete with other consumers for presently available resources, then they aren’t going to sit there cheerfully with 19 currency in their pocket. If they aren’t going to buy current resources, they will buy control of future resources. Otherwise it raises the question of to what end did they accept the new currency and why is it being created?
I'm going to have to stop there because my complaints need rebuilding, but I think I'll end up finding out what the name for asset-price inflation and properly learn about the velocity of money, but is since it isn't expressed in inflation then it must be competing for future resources which I expect to turn up in asset prices. If that formulation survives scrutiny, then something really interesting must be afoot to do with how future claims on resources will be settled.
Thanks again for your interest, this has been a very illuminating conversation for me that has reduced my ignorance of economics substantially and will improve my arguments in the future.
All very good points. I actually thought about your #2 and #4 after I posted. But, at that point I was already in route to the airport. Also, to be honest, I really wasn’t sure how to analyze it any further - pointing to my lack of knowledge. It seemed like a bit of rabbit hole and beyond me.
> If putting economists in charge somehow curtails monopolies, externalised costs, tragedies of the commons and boom and bust business cycles then someone really should sit down and get that news out there. Nothing I've heard suggests economists outperform a healthy democratic process.
You think those concepts came out of democracy popping a macroeconomics book out of a vote?
You think those concepts came out of democracy popping a macroeconomics book out of a vote?
Actually, it's not clear if boom and busts are "a thing" in free markets. We've had far worse booms and busts, and at a higher pace, ever since the Federal Reserve was created and has artificially modified the interest rate.
The Fed lowers the interest rate because they have an incentive for the economy to perform well, because they want to look good (Alan Greenspan admitted he kept interest rates lower longer than he thought necessary because he wanted to retire on a high economy). This makes money cheap, so to speak, which creates incentive for everyone to borrow. Individually, this makes sense, but together, this ends in 2009-style.
On top of that, many monopolies are created via regulations and laws.
The fact that you're not even able to discuss these concepts or to realize that economists are incentivized to believe exactly the opposite of what I've said, because they financially benefit as central planners, mean that you are anti-intellectual, not the OP.
The Fed lowers the interest rate because they have an incentive for the economy to perform well, because they want to look good (Alan Greenspan admitted he kept interest rates lower longer than he thought necessary because he wanted to retire on a high economy). This makes money cheap, so to speak, which creates incentive for everyone to borrow. Individually, this makes sense, but together, this ends in 2009-style.
On top of that, many monopolies are created via regulations and laws.
The fact that you're not even able to discuss these concepts or to realize that economists are incentivized to believe exactly the opposite of what I've said, because they financially benefit as central planners, mean that you are anti-intellectual, not the OP.
My understanding of economic history, including the 1870s (but many other busts, too), is quite different. Can you cite a source?
I happen to be reading "A History of The World Economy", by James Foreman-Pack. It contradicts you at every turn (Chapter 6 esp) and notes there was a time when the U.S. was the odd man out, lacking a national bank and suffered more severe downturns than other nations, amongst other things.
I happen to be reading "A History of The World Economy", by James Foreman-Pack. It contradicts you at every turn (Chapter 6 esp) and notes there was a time when the U.S. was the odd man out, lacking a national bank and suffered more severe downturns than other nations, amongst other things.
"And the Reserve System, established in response to monetary instability, had the power to exercise deliberate control over the stock of money and so could take advantage of this possibility to promote monetary stability.
That conjecture is not in accord with what actually happened. As is clear to the naked eye in Chart 1, the stock of money shows larger fluctuations after 1914 than before 1914 and this is true even if the large wartime increases in the stock of money are excluded. The blind,
undesigned, and quasi-automatic working of the gold Standard turned out to produce a greater measure of predictability and regularity--per-haps because its discipline was impersonal and inescapable--than did
deliberate and conscious control exercised within institutional arrangements intended to promote monetary stability."
Friedman's "Monetary History of the United States" pg 9-10
Friedman's "Monetary History of the United States" pg 9-10
The idea that "the stock of money" is a real, objective thing is rank insanity. The idea that this "stock of money" should magically be constant makes even less sense.
There is no stock of money. There are only political decisions, assorted client and patron relationships, and national and international conflicts among interest groups that define social goals and resource distribution.
Money is political power counted on imaginary tally sticks. Volume fluctuations are irrelevant. What matters is what people do, for whom, to what end, using what resources.
In an alleged democracy what should matter is economic enfranchisement - which in practice means creating fluid and porous social castes and interest groups, and inventing interesting goals with intelligence, realism, and effectiveness.
Booms and busts are caused by aimless short-term accumulation, which is a form of unintelligent goal setting. Whether tally sticks are referenced to lumps of shiny metal or numbers derived by fiat is wholly irrelevant if the only goal is to acquire as many sticks as possible, and nothing else matters.
There is no stock of money. There are only political decisions, assorted client and patron relationships, and national and international conflicts among interest groups that define social goals and resource distribution.
Money is political power counted on imaginary tally sticks. Volume fluctuations are irrelevant. What matters is what people do, for whom, to what end, using what resources.
In an alleged democracy what should matter is economic enfranchisement - which in practice means creating fluid and porous social castes and interest groups, and inventing interesting goals with intelligence, realism, and effectiveness.
Booms and busts are caused by aimless short-term accumulation, which is a form of unintelligent goal setting. Whether tally sticks are referenced to lumps of shiny metal or numbers derived by fiat is wholly irrelevant if the only goal is to acquire as many sticks as possible, and nothing else matters.
[deleted]
First sentence: True - and neglected in our time, but not, I think by the originator of the concept. He did set a lot of store by "animal spirits," and these very strongly affect "the money supply" in the following ways:
The usual multiplier of funds in a bank assumes that the depositors will regard their banked money as still theirs and available. But note that this is actually the OPPOSITE of the thinking of my grandparents, who lived through the great depression. To them, the largest single reason to put money in a bank was precisely to forget about it; and to piously treat it as now beyond their reach and ability to spend because it was now part of a sacred reserve. A very deflationary logic since it brings down the effective banking multiplier of the money supply (reflected by spending) sharply. And this is indeed what happens after a recession, and a kind of thinking that's still with us, post 2008.
Of course, changes in sexual selection are also a large part of this. Young women and men shifted from being very interested in free spenders of the opposite sex (as a proof of money) before 2008 to being much less interested in being married to a free spender, thanks. Where I live, I was woken by revelers in the early morning leaving the fanciest downtown bars blocks away until 2008 at least a couple of times a week, for years. In all the years since that crisis, those extreme revelers have only very rarely been heard from by me. Despite my being a much less sound sleeper, now. Here too, sexual selection shifts post-crisis to a logic that's closer to bank-it-and-don't-think-about-it. (Debt accumulation, say on credit cards, may contradict me by now, however.)
The usual multiplier of funds in a bank assumes that the depositors will regard their banked money as still theirs and available. But note that this is actually the OPPOSITE of the thinking of my grandparents, who lived through the great depression. To them, the largest single reason to put money in a bank was precisely to forget about it; and to piously treat it as now beyond their reach and ability to spend because it was now part of a sacred reserve. A very deflationary logic since it brings down the effective banking multiplier of the money supply (reflected by spending) sharply. And this is indeed what happens after a recession, and a kind of thinking that's still with us, post 2008.
Of course, changes in sexual selection are also a large part of this. Young women and men shifted from being very interested in free spenders of the opposite sex (as a proof of money) before 2008 to being much less interested in being married to a free spender, thanks. Where I live, I was woken by revelers in the early morning leaving the fanciest downtown bars blocks away until 2008 at least a couple of times a week, for years. In all the years since that crisis, those extreme revelers have only very rarely been heard from by me. Despite my being a much less sound sleeper, now. Here too, sexual selection shifts post-crisis to a logic that's closer to bank-it-and-don't-think-about-it. (Debt accumulation, say on credit cards, may contradict me by now, however.)
Just curious: is this coming from stuff you've read or original thought? Because what you just said feels much closer to the truth than anything I heard in my macroeconomics 101 class. But I'm not an economist, so.
You've changed the subject, sir.
No period (before 1914) is given by Friedman. This matters because, as my source is careful to say, a remarkably rigid system of international currency exchange rates had been formed before the WWI. This wasn't an accomplishment of the U.S., nor was it entirely safe, wise, or productive.
Of course, rather by definition, if multiple currencies are all convertible to gold (as they were pre-1914) they rise and fall in exact sync with each other with every whim of the gold market, every gold discovery, etc - until one falls off the cliff and has to renounce conversion - but that hardly means no whiplash!! In fact it means countries are less insulated from each other's economic troubles, more of a monoculture than a robust ecosystem - and, as stated, every country's economy is whipped about by anything that changes how easy it is to get gold out of the ground or increases or decreases consumption of it, including fashion and improvements in dental technology. Also, even the severest depression won't be reflected in the exchange rates. And it was those downturns, that were the topic.
Stable exchange rates have a trade-off; and they certainly don't prove economic stability or the absence of downturns at all. It's more like watching a team of acrobatic aircraft: they all maintain their wingtip distance strictly, and that's fine: but if one plane goes into the ground, they all do. Being in close formation isn't a proof you're not headed for a mountain or the ground; because it's not the kind of stability that has anything to do with that most important risk. Ditto rigid exchange rates.
What changed in 1914 was war. There was no intellectual decision that gold convertibility was unfashionable - war breeds inflation, necessity made conversion a hindrance to the war efforts. That international confusion (and therefore the resultant fluctuations in currency exchange rates worldwide) wasn't created by the American decision to have a central bank, for goodness sake. If anything the arrow of causation went the other way.
If Milton finds it hard to believe that the war-to-end-all-wars might have caused a wee bit of currency turbulence, so it had to be the U.S. finally creating a Federal Banking Institution that did that all over the world, he's rather isolated in that position. But of course, he's slyly leaving that leap into the abyss for the reader to make.
No period (before 1914) is given by Friedman. This matters because, as my source is careful to say, a remarkably rigid system of international currency exchange rates had been formed before the WWI. This wasn't an accomplishment of the U.S., nor was it entirely safe, wise, or productive.
Of course, rather by definition, if multiple currencies are all convertible to gold (as they were pre-1914) they rise and fall in exact sync with each other with every whim of the gold market, every gold discovery, etc - until one falls off the cliff and has to renounce conversion - but that hardly means no whiplash!! In fact it means countries are less insulated from each other's economic troubles, more of a monoculture than a robust ecosystem - and, as stated, every country's economy is whipped about by anything that changes how easy it is to get gold out of the ground or increases or decreases consumption of it, including fashion and improvements in dental technology. Also, even the severest depression won't be reflected in the exchange rates. And it was those downturns, that were the topic.
Stable exchange rates have a trade-off; and they certainly don't prove economic stability or the absence of downturns at all. It's more like watching a team of acrobatic aircraft: they all maintain their wingtip distance strictly, and that's fine: but if one plane goes into the ground, they all do. Being in close formation isn't a proof you're not headed for a mountain or the ground; because it's not the kind of stability that has anything to do with that most important risk. Ditto rigid exchange rates.
What changed in 1914 was war. There was no intellectual decision that gold convertibility was unfashionable - war breeds inflation, necessity made conversion a hindrance to the war efforts. That international confusion (and therefore the resultant fluctuations in currency exchange rates worldwide) wasn't created by the American decision to have a central bank, for goodness sake. If anything the arrow of causation went the other way.
If Milton finds it hard to believe that the war-to-end-all-wars might have caused a wee bit of currency turbulence, so it had to be the U.S. finally creating a Federal Banking Institution that did that all over the world, he's rather isolated in that position. But of course, he's slyly leaving that leap into the abyss for the reader to make.
What changed in 1914 was going from gold backed money to fiat money controlled by a central bank.
> and has to renounce conversion
This problem only happens in a fiat money system. It notably happened in 1930 in the US.
> and has to renounce conversion
This problem only happens in a fiat money system. It notably happened in 1930 in the US.
There was a world-wide change in 1914 that blew apart the previous rigid system of currency exchange. The U.S. followed suit, but under any scheme at all the exchange rates of its currency would have been more unstable because the previous stability between all currencies was gone, whatever the U.S. chose.
Nixon renounced conversion to go to a fiat system. That's what renouncing conversion means, to abandon conversion, leaving only the fiat. You are agreeing strenuously.
And again, all this a whole other topic than whether downturns were more or less frequent: which was where I started.
Nixon renounced conversion to go to a fiat system. That's what renouncing conversion means, to abandon conversion, leaving only the fiat. You are agreeing strenuously.
And again, all this a whole other topic than whether downturns were more or less frequent: which was where I started.
The world wide change in 1914 was going from the gold standard to a fiat money system.
> exchange rates of currency
That was not the topic, the topic was instability in the money supply.
> Nixon
The US official exchange rate was a fiction from 1930-Nixon, because it was illegal to hold gold as a monetary instrument. Nixon simply did away with the fiction.
> exchange rates of currency
That was not the topic, the topic was instability in the money supply.
> Nixon
The US official exchange rate was a fiction from 1930-Nixon, because it was illegal to hold gold as a monetary instrument. Nixon simply did away with the fiction.
NO. Just before the war, the war scare blew up the exchange system. It's in the book cited. History. Empiricism. Data.
Now you want to change the topic away from EITHER economic stability OR exchange rate stability? To money supply stability, a whole other topic? Yikes.
Nixon - cavilling. Choose any illustration and the logic and semantics of "fiat" remain. Once again, you're off on a new topic, a new distraction. Not only is that not logical, it's not civil, either.
Now you want to change the topic away from EITHER economic stability OR exchange rate stability? To money supply stability, a whole other topic? Yikes.
Nixon - cavilling. Choose any illustration and the logic and semantics of "fiat" remain. Once again, you're off on a new topic, a new distraction. Not only is that not logical, it's not civil, either.
Free markets do not claim that. Those against free markets try to twist free market to claim them. Free markets to claim that boom and bust cycles are smaller, that monopolies are harder to maintain. Monetary policy is by definition not part of a free market (though many people try things that look like monetary policy if they have power the market isn't free). External costs/tragedy of the commons is something free market doesn't do well, which is why free market advocates have complex ideas that boil down to internalizing those costs.
Or monetary policy.
There are laissez faire arguments to counter every example you provided, but calling monetary policy laissez faire is oxymoronic or, if you prefer, anti-intellectual.
There are laissez faire arguments to counter every example you provided, but calling monetary policy laissez faire is oxymoronic or, if you prefer, anti-intellectual.
There was no monetary policy in the US prior to 1914.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account." -- The Fatal Conceit, Friedrich Hayek
Even prominent libertarian economists like Russ Roberts are in favor of some regulation. There are definitely those with more radical positions, but rarely very mainstream.
> That's just run of the mill anti-intellectualism.
Respectfully, you just dismissed an entire school of economic thought out of hand.
Respectfully, you just dismissed an entire school of economic thought out of hand.
Which school in particular?
I think there are different kinds of smartness. For example I am good at solving difficult technical problems. But I can only operate well in an honest and open environment and am prone to falling into traps built by politically savvy people. Being good at politics is also a smart thing but it requires different tools than you need for good engineering or science.
I'm in the same boat as you. I hate politics and back-stabbing environments. Why can't everybody just do what it's supposed to do in a work environment?
People who "hate politics" tend to create a lot of it.
Being politically savvy/expedient is as much about knowing how to get along with people as it is getting what you want.
Being politically savvy/expedient is as much about knowing how to get along with people as it is getting what you want.
> People who "hate politics" tend to create a lot of it.
There is a reason for that.
Politics is basically the process of pasting kludges together until the net result is something that no powerful group hates enough to be willing to smash it all to smithereens with a sledgehammer.
But if you objectively look at any of the kludges individually, or even the overall result after a few years, it's a horrific mess. A horrific mess at a Nash equilibrium. So as soon as you start picking apart any subsection of the omnishambles, everything falls out of balance and someone starts screaming for you to stop.
And it is a horrific mess that should be smashed to smithereens with a sledgehammer every few years, but the only way to do that is to wipe the slate clean and start over from scratch with multilateral negotiations between two hundred separate parties. Which is a ton of work that nobody wants to do when they can get away with kicking the can down the road for another year.
So anybody who tries to smash up any part of the mess has to fight everyone who would rather keep the status quo than do the work to fix it right now.
There is a reason for that.
Politics is basically the process of pasting kludges together until the net result is something that no powerful group hates enough to be willing to smash it all to smithereens with a sledgehammer.
But if you objectively look at any of the kludges individually, or even the overall result after a few years, it's a horrific mess. A horrific mess at a Nash equilibrium. So as soon as you start picking apart any subsection of the omnishambles, everything falls out of balance and someone starts screaming for you to stop.
And it is a horrific mess that should be smashed to smithereens with a sledgehammer every few years, but the only way to do that is to wipe the slate clean and start over from scratch with multilateral negotiations between two hundred separate parties. Which is a ton of work that nobody wants to do when they can get away with kicking the can down the road for another year.
So anybody who tries to smash up any part of the mess has to fight everyone who would rather keep the status quo than do the work to fix it right now.
“Politics and crime, they are the same thing.”
All three movies are now on Netflix.
All three movies are now on Netflix.
> but the only way to do that is to wipe the slate clean and start over from scratch with multilateral negotiations between two hundred separate parties
Hum... Have you ever seen negotiations between hundreds of different parties? They way to do that is getting enough force to change an incentive, and changing it; then going after enough force to change another one, and changing it. Let the people fight over the new incentive far from you.
Hum... Have you ever seen negotiations between hundreds of different parties? They way to do that is getting enough force to change an incentive, and changing it; then going after enough force to change another one, and changing it. Let the people fight over the new incentive far from you.
Lot of black and white, 1+1=2 type statements here. Politics is about dealing with uncertainity and ambiguity. The real world is full of it. If your parents can't stand each other but tomorrow you get cancer and this dsyfunctional unit has to deal politics applies. Good politics makes things better.
Writing down on a piece of paper - these truths are self evident that all men are created equal does not make it so in the real world. That's an example of ambiguity. There is no question of smashing things up and hitting a reset button when dealing with ambiguity. Here too good politics applies cause everyone in the room knows the statement is false but good politics can bring everyone into the room and keep them there and make them decide they are going to change the "truth".
Young people like you, aren't exposed to ambiguity or expected to solve ambiguities, cause you have enough on your plate accumulating knowledge about all the unambiguous stuff. It is easy for a young person to get it into his head, that all problems are pointless to work on if the text book is only filled with ambiguous problems. Which is why students textbooks aren't filled with them. The flip side is some students get it into their heads that all problems are unambiguous. They are the ones that misunderstand politics. Leave alone what good politics can do.
Writing down on a piece of paper - these truths are self evident that all men are created equal does not make it so in the real world. That's an example of ambiguity. There is no question of smashing things up and hitting a reset button when dealing with ambiguity. Here too good politics applies cause everyone in the room knows the statement is false but good politics can bring everyone into the room and keep them there and make them decide they are going to change the "truth".
Young people like you, aren't exposed to ambiguity or expected to solve ambiguities, cause you have enough on your plate accumulating knowledge about all the unambiguous stuff. It is easy for a young person to get it into his head, that all problems are pointless to work on if the text book is only filled with ambiguous problems. Which is why students textbooks aren't filled with them. The flip side is some students get it into their heads that all problems are unambiguous. They are the ones that misunderstand politics. Leave alone what good politics can do.
This isn't about the ambiguity. That's something else.
This is about, for example, ethanol subsidies. Basically everyone who doesn't receive them thinks they're dumb. It takes more than a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol, it diverts productive farmland from food which makes food cost more for the poor (and everyone), it's an inefficient use of tax dollars, etc.
Yet we continue to have ethanol subsidies, because it gets politicians from districts full of corn farmers to vote for the bill even when the bill contains a bunch of differently-toxic nonsense for other interests in different districts.
And you don't need 100% of the votes to pass, you only need 51%. So all you have to do is construct a bill that allows 51% of the districts to steal resources from the other 49% in various ways like that, and it passes. Which is why everyone hates politics.
But those bills are precarious, because it doesn't pay to have 75% of the vote. An excess 25% would require you to give things to people using resources you could have kept for your existing coalition.
Only that means you can't afford to lose too many of your votes when someone starts to make a stink about a specific inefficient program that was shoring those votes up. If the ethanol subsidies were removed from the bill, you would be short on votes.
Which turns honest outsiders just trying to make a positive impact into political enemies, because they're threatening to dismantle your majority coalition.
And the same dynamic plays out in any system based on majority voting.
This is about, for example, ethanol subsidies. Basically everyone who doesn't receive them thinks they're dumb. It takes more than a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol, it diverts productive farmland from food which makes food cost more for the poor (and everyone), it's an inefficient use of tax dollars, etc.
Yet we continue to have ethanol subsidies, because it gets politicians from districts full of corn farmers to vote for the bill even when the bill contains a bunch of differently-toxic nonsense for other interests in different districts.
And you don't need 100% of the votes to pass, you only need 51%. So all you have to do is construct a bill that allows 51% of the districts to steal resources from the other 49% in various ways like that, and it passes. Which is why everyone hates politics.
But those bills are precarious, because it doesn't pay to have 75% of the vote. An excess 25% would require you to give things to people using resources you could have kept for your existing coalition.
Only that means you can't afford to lose too many of your votes when someone starts to make a stink about a specific inefficient program that was shoring those votes up. If the ethanol subsidies were removed from the bill, you would be short on votes.
Which turns honest outsiders just trying to make a positive impact into political enemies, because they're threatening to dismantle your majority coalition.
And the same dynamic plays out in any system based on majority voting.
Of course it is ambiguous. You and the corn farmers both can make a case. I wasn't making a point about how lovable politics is, but why it's needed to the misguided character above who has reached a conclusion that "smashing" the system helps. The system is all that keeps you and the corn farmers from picking up a gun and removing ambiguity.
That's not what ambiguity means. Ambiguity is, for example, the CFAA. Nobody really knows what "unauthorized access" means, it's ambiguous.
Ethanol subsidies aren't ambiguous. Nobody seriously disagrees on what they are. People disagree on whether we should have them.
And there are issues where that kind of disagreement is purely subjective, like abortion. Purely a disagreement about principles rather than facts.
But there are also your Bridge to Nowhere type deals, like ethanol subsidies, that are contrary to objective fact. The bill is sold under a particular justification (e.g. reduce dependence on petroleum) and it factually does not do that. There is no principle to disagree about, it's objectively just pork, and the "facts" used by the proponents are lies.
The thing where lobbyists pretend there are zero objective things just because there are non-zero non-objective things is merely a dishonest tactic they use to paper over the unjustifiability of their preferred pork.
> The system is all that keeps you and the corn farmers from picking up a gun and removing ambiguity.
There is a difference between specific rules and the concept of having rules. Basically nobody is in favor of total anarchy or removing foundational rules like the illegality of murder.
But when your tax code is more than a thousand pages, it's past time to throw it out and start over.
Ethanol subsidies aren't ambiguous. Nobody seriously disagrees on what they are. People disagree on whether we should have them.
And there are issues where that kind of disagreement is purely subjective, like abortion. Purely a disagreement about principles rather than facts.
But there are also your Bridge to Nowhere type deals, like ethanol subsidies, that are contrary to objective fact. The bill is sold under a particular justification (e.g. reduce dependence on petroleum) and it factually does not do that. There is no principle to disagree about, it's objectively just pork, and the "facts" used by the proponents are lies.
The thing where lobbyists pretend there are zero objective things just because there are non-zero non-objective things is merely a dishonest tactic they use to paper over the unjustifiability of their preferred pork.
> The system is all that keeps you and the corn farmers from picking up a gun and removing ambiguity.
There is a difference between specific rules and the concept of having rules. Basically nobody is in favor of total anarchy or removing foundational rules like the illegality of murder.
But when your tax code is more than a thousand pages, it's past time to throw it out and start over.
Since I made the original comment I just want to clarify that I made no judgement on political savvy. My point was that there are a lot dimensions to smartness so "smart leader" is a meaningless word by itself. Smart in what way?
I'm of the same cloth, I'm not fond of interpersonal politics in a working environment but I've came to accept it's part and parcel of live, work is no exception.
Politics is not so much about politicising ethics or your workplace. It's the nuances about creating a positive work environment, finding compromise in decisions, creating common ground and finding a balance between honesty and caring for others.
The nuance is there but it's entirely in the grey. It's not black and white.
There's a quote from Russell Brand that comes to mind who from what I recall, was quoting his own father:
"A man that says a space is a spade is fit only to wield one"
Politics is not so much about politicising ethics or your workplace. It's the nuances about creating a positive work environment, finding compromise in decisions, creating common ground and finding a balance between honesty and caring for others.
The nuance is there but it's entirely in the grey. It's not black and white.
There's a quote from Russell Brand that comes to mind who from what I recall, was quoting his own father:
"A man that says a space is a spade is fit only to wield one"
As much it is not about hating politics but hating mischievous backstabbers. Getting along with people does not mean licking their behind. People who instead of spending most time licking someones bottom instead of doing actuall work are problem. Also they spend their time thinking how to throw someone under the bus instead of adding value.
So beeing savvy/expedient is not a problem.
So beeing savvy/expedient is not a problem.
> My father told me that con men preferred to go after smart people, like doctors. The reason is that smart people thought they were too smart to get conned, and hence were more gullible.
Another reason for going after high-status professionals (proxy for 'smart') is that they may be less likely to use violence as a method for dispute resolution?
Also, if they have to maintain a reputation of savviness, they may be less encline to make it public knowledge that they got swindled by pressing charges.
Also, disposable income...
Another reason for going after high-status professionals (proxy for 'smart') is that they may be less likely to use violence as a method for dispute resolution?
Also, if they have to maintain a reputation of savviness, they may be less encline to make it public knowledge that they got swindled by pressing charges.
Also, disposable income...
This is likely related to trait Openness to experience, which is positively correlated with IQ. Those with a better ability to assess ideas on their merit don't need to develop as much of a memetic immune system, since their formative experiences contain much fewer learning examples of getting burned by malign ideas.
And similarly, I think there's a good argument for wanting leaders with lower Openness than is commonly found among those with very high IQ. Obviously you want your leaders to consider new ideas, but you definitely do not want them to get carried away by any pipe dream that comes across their desk. Instead, you want their opinions to be pretty well fixed. That way, if you figure out that their values are aligned with yours, you can rely on them to stay true.
And similarly, I think there's a good argument for wanting leaders with lower Openness than is commonly found among those with very high IQ. Obviously you want your leaders to consider new ideas, but you definitely do not want them to get carried away by any pipe dream that comes across their desk. Instead, you want their opinions to be pretty well fixed. That way, if you figure out that their values are aligned with yours, you can rely on them to stay true.
I think con men go after doctors because they have large incomes with few options to minimise tax and they tend to have minimal free time. It's not like doctors don't have to deal with uncertainty and their own limitations, they are reminded of this constantly trying to manage medical conditions.
> My father told me that con men preferred to go after smart people
This doesn't make a lot of sense. Most cons like the various Nigerian money scams and pyramid scams are designed to only get responses from less intelligent people.
This doesn't make a lot of sense. Most cons like the various Nigerian money scams and pyramid scams are designed to only get responses from less intelligent people.
It's not hard to imagine why the sorts of people who fall for widely-spread con nets and those who fall for highly personalized focused attacks aren't the same.
[deleted]
Perhaps "people who thought they were smart"?
They say you can't cheat an honest man. Why is that? Clearly, a lot of mostly honest folks do get conned sometimes.
They aren't talking about something like Bank of America overcharging you on mortgage interest every month for years. That's not the kind of con you can do without a lot of cooperation, teamwork, and setup. It's more about the one-time scores.
At the core of every con is a kernel of dishonesty, as the bait. Even something as simple as the Nigerian 419 or Spanish Prisoner has the implication that the advance fee supplied by the mark will be used to pay bribes. That means the mark is willing to be dishonest. The hook is set by revealing an opportunity for the mark to cheat the con artist to screw them out of some money. The million dollars will be transferred into your account, in your name, and we will ask you nicely to please, please give it to us, minus a reasonable fee.
You go after the person smart enough to realize that they could just keep all that money, but not smart enough to realize there was never any money to keep. You go after the person who thinks they are smart enough to scam the con artist, and also dishonest enough to try. It might be because actively trying to scam someone turns off your own defenses against getting scammed.
They aren't talking about something like Bank of America overcharging you on mortgage interest every month for years. That's not the kind of con you can do without a lot of cooperation, teamwork, and setup. It's more about the one-time scores.
At the core of every con is a kernel of dishonesty, as the bait. Even something as simple as the Nigerian 419 or Spanish Prisoner has the implication that the advance fee supplied by the mark will be used to pay bribes. That means the mark is willing to be dishonest. The hook is set by revealing an opportunity for the mark to cheat the con artist to screw them out of some money. The million dollars will be transferred into your account, in your name, and we will ask you nicely to please, please give it to us, minus a reasonable fee.
You go after the person smart enough to realize that they could just keep all that money, but not smart enough to realize there was never any money to keep. You go after the person who thinks they are smart enough to scam the con artist, and also dishonest enough to try. It might be because actively trying to scam someone turns off your own defenses against getting scammed.
Bribes aren't de facto dishonest — their existence is, but using the only system available to e.g. get out of Germany isn't — and the type of person who falls for Nigerian 419 scams likely doesn't think the whole thing through.
I think they are. They are more dishonest than paying kidnap ransom, in any case.
When you pay a bribe, you actively fuel the system of corruption that makes them necessary. If you are doing it as a last gasp to escape that system, that is a different matter entirely from doing it to buy in to that system.
The 419 scam lays it out there. You're going to be paying bribes into a corrupt system to take possession of some money that is not yours, but it doesn't belong to anyone in particular, so there is no victim, and therefore not stealing, per se. It's mostly harmless, and just a little bit crooked, so why not just wire all your savings to Lagos in $1000 chunks and get rich quickly and easily?
Being just a bit crooked is essential for discouraging the mark from getting help from a friend or talking to the cops. If they speak of it to anyone else, that person will then know they are at least a bit sleazy, and possibly criminal. It's the same tactic used by criminal predators to silence their victims. Human trafficking, for instance: "You're here illegally, so if you talk to the cops, you'll be jailed and deported, and then you'll have to pay off your debt by farming beets in hardscrabble for the rest of your life."
When you pay a bribe, you actively fuel the system of corruption that makes them necessary. If you are doing it as a last gasp to escape that system, that is a different matter entirely from doing it to buy in to that system.
The 419 scam lays it out there. You're going to be paying bribes into a corrupt system to take possession of some money that is not yours, but it doesn't belong to anyone in particular, so there is no victim, and therefore not stealing, per se. It's mostly harmless, and just a little bit crooked, so why not just wire all your savings to Lagos in $1000 chunks and get rich quickly and easily?
Being just a bit crooked is essential for discouraging the mark from getting help from a friend or talking to the cops. If they speak of it to anyone else, that person will then know they are at least a bit sleazy, and possibly criminal. It's the same tactic used by criminal predators to silence their victims. Human trafficking, for instance: "You're here illegally, so if you talk to the cops, you'll be jailed and deported, and then you'll have to pay off your debt by farming beets in hardscrabble for the rest of your life."
The poor get conned the most, but it's done in bulk to make it worthwhile. Scam emails, phone calls, TV priests, and so on. You'd probably lose money if you scammed them one at a time.
Re doctors -- "The Family" cult de facto ran some hospitals and were able to get children into the cult from vulnerable teenage (and other) mothers.
"The group consisted of middle class professionals; it has been estimated that a quarter were nurses and other medical personnel "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Australian_New_Age...
I've heard that EST and Scientology and similar go hard after dentists.
"The group consisted of middle class professionals; it has been estimated that a quarter were nurses and other medical personnel "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Australian_New_Age...
I've heard that EST and Scientology and similar go hard after dentists.
> And I've noticed many smart leaders who thought they were much smarter than they actually were, and didn't need to listen to others' advice, leading to some very poor decisions.
There's a difference between smart people who are leaders and smart leaders. A smart leader should know how to hire smarter people and extract good advice/insight from those people.
There's a difference between smart people who are leaders and smart leaders. A smart leader should know how to hire smarter people and extract good advice/insight from those people.
What you’re defining is the difference between “smart leaders” and “good leaders”, mistakenly conflating “smart” with “good” which is precisely the parent’s point. You can have leaders who are good and smart, and you can have smart leaders who not good at leading.
Just to complete the quadrant, there are also dumb leaders who are good at leading (will usually still do quite well) and dumb leaders who are also not good at leading (usually does not end very well, IMO this is where middle management tyrants come from). Even though I'd wish it were not so, smartness is correlated to success in the same way that hard work is: it helps, but you still need a lot of luck as well.
> My father told me that con men preferred to go after smart people, like doctors.
If there is one thing that I'm happy about with Ben Carson, it's that he proved that doctors are not generally smart.
They are highly practiced and highly skilled--like a professional athlete. "Smart", however, is only in their narrow field.
If there is one thing that I'm happy about with Ben Carson, it's that he proved that doctors are not generally smart.
They are highly practiced and highly skilled--like a professional athlete. "Smart", however, is only in their narrow field.
"He was also an economist, and told me that there wasn't an economist born who could stand the idea that the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help"."
What exactly are you saying? Economists tend to lean somewhat libertarian, though like any field, there are a range of political opinions.
What exactly are you saying? Economists tend to lean somewhat libertarian, though like any field, there are a range of political opinions.
They tend to lean libertarian in lip service, and somewhere closer to Stalin in their insistence on their vital role in policy suggestions.
Con men would like you to think they prey on the smartest. Of course, the big cons are the most exciting/newsworthy. But most of them are grinding it out on the uneducated or elderly.
>the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help".
That's impossible, because if the right answer is to leave the market alone then economists can help gather the political will to stay the visible hand - and if the right answer is to change things then the right person to have decide what to do is someone that has thought deeply about it, by definition making them an economist.
That's impossible, because if the right answer is to leave the market alone then economists can help gather the political will to stay the visible hand - and if the right answer is to change things then the right person to have decide what to do is someone that has thought deeply about it, by definition making them an economist.
There are many people who benefit from un-free markets. Economists are one group - a free market might be better, but then they don't have a job advising powerful politicians. Thus a free market is not in their best interest.
Alas, I suspect there is very little correlation between "smart" and "wise."
Sort of a reverse Dunning-Kruger effect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Nassim Taleb calls them IYI, Intellectuals Yet Idiots
Nassim Taleb is prime example of an IYI himself. He is often so busy denouncing what he perceives to be ivory tower intellectuals that he sweeps aside everything academia has ever created. Sure, some of it is not useful in the trading pit, but IMO in his hate of academia he is throwing away the baby with the bath water.
Great self-awareness he displays there
>The study’s lead author, John Antonakis, a psychologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, suggests leaders should use their intelligence to generate creative metaphors that will persuade and inspire others—the way former U.S. President Barack Obama did. “I think the only way a smart person can signal their intelligence appropriately and still connect with the people,” Antonakis says, “is to speak in charismatic ways.”
This stood out to me. I would be interested to hear the thoughts of HN readers on this.
This stood out to me. I would be interested to hear the thoughts of HN readers on this.
I think charisma is best used to signal a lack of intelligence. Someone else posted a link to a op-ed about GWB, but Trump follows a similar approach. Lots of people question his intelligence and decision-making ability, yet, every one of us hear or talk about him several times a day.
He also has a political sleight-of-hand that I don't think has ever been matched. Every time a key policy decision is being debated, the news channels are focused on Trump's latest gaffe rather than the decisions being made in Washington.
Appeal to emotion to get results, not reason.
He also has a political sleight-of-hand that I don't think has ever been matched. Every time a key policy decision is being debated, the news channels are focused on Trump's latest gaffe rather than the decisions being made in Washington.
Appeal to emotion to get results, not reason.
To use a metaphor as a counterargument, if there were a 6 foot spider in my shower you'd better believe I would talk about it at least a few times a day. That doesn't mean the spider has charisma, just that it's a clear and present danger weighing heavily on my mind.
If anyone is exercising political sleight of hand I'd say it's the legislators and executive staff who are getting in all their unpopular actions while the getting is good, like a looter in a riot. Trump doesn't have to be politically savvy or even aware of what they're doing for that to happen.
If anyone is exercising political sleight of hand I'd say it's the legislators and executive staff who are getting in all their unpopular actions while the getting is good, like a looter in a riot. Trump doesn't have to be politically savvy or even aware of what they're doing for that to happen.
Trump's skillset is that of a reality TV star. He knows what to say and how to say it to engage people in drama. His presidency has been a continuation of this. It freaks out the intelligentsia because it seems insane to them that a person in such a high place of power could get involved in things like Twitter flame wars. That's low class/blue collar behavior that is totally foreign to their own culture. That is why people on the blue collar end of the spectrum are more capable of realizing that this particular aspect of his behavior does not represent a genuine threat, because it's part of their culture.
> Twitter flame wars ... does not represent a genuine threat
...until it's a flame war between two nuclear powers with unstable leaders.
...until it's a flame war between two nuclear powers with unstable leaders.
Your depiction of Trump as unstable is exactly this cultural bias I'm referring to. He doesn't exhibit the upper class white culture behaviors you're willing to accept in a president, so he seems unstable.
It's worth mentioning that while he's always been rich, Trump spent a significant portion of his youth around construction sites, so he has adopted a lot of low class blue collar behavior.
It's worth mentioning that while he's always been rich, Trump spent a significant portion of his youth around construction sites, so he has adopted a lot of low class blue collar behavior.
I think charisma isn't a signal for intellectual weakness, but it does suggest that the person isn't speaking intellectually to you. Most people aren't at a place to understand policy implications, so charisma is a better proxy.
Minor nit-pick, I didn't say it was a signal of intellectual weakness (clearly it's the opposite), but instead that it is best used to "trick" the person you're speaking to into thinking you're at their level.
Obama spoke like a college professor because he knew his audience would respect that kind of person.
Trump speaks like a "straight talker" because he knows his audience respects that kind of person.
Obama spoke like a college professor because he knew his audience would respect that kind of person.
Trump speaks like a "straight talker" because he knows his audience respects that kind of person.
[deleted]
Maybe the title should be "Why Really Dumb People Dislike Really Smart Leaders". "Talk to them like they're five" is what that suggestion sounds like to me.
There's a difference between metaphors and speaking down to someone. When I talk about topics in CS or mathematics with my girlfriend or some members of my family, I speak in metaphors. I don't speak to them like they're five. I speak to them like they're intelligent people who have a model of the world that is different than mine or the things I want to discuss, and I relate my work or interests to their models.
Plenty of people don't talk down to 5 year olds. That's an assumption you've made regarding 'explain like I'm 5'.
Ironically, that's what makes 'explain like I'm 5' so useful - it takes away the assumptions people have in their heads and forces them to use simple language and explain things from first principles.
It's quite powerful really. Richard Feynman was famous for being to explain physics in a way a layman could understand. Neil deGrasse Tyson does the same and people love it.
Ironically, that's what makes 'explain like I'm 5' so useful - it takes away the assumptions people have in their heads and forces them to use simple language and explain things from first principles.
It's quite powerful really. Richard Feynman was famous for being to explain physics in a way a layman could understand. Neil deGrasse Tyson does the same and people love it.
> Richard Feynman was famous for being to explain physics in a way a layman could understand.
Agreed. And the Challenger O-ring demonstration was a beautiful example of metaphor even if it wasn't correct. (Morton-Thiokol engineers had evidence that the O-rings didn't seal even at 75F and had been trying to stop launches PERIOD).
However, Feynman was also famous for "proof by intimidation" if you caught him out on something he didn't understand.
Agreed. And the Challenger O-ring demonstration was a beautiful example of metaphor even if it wasn't correct. (Morton-Thiokol engineers had evidence that the O-rings didn't seal even at 75F and had been trying to stop launches PERIOD).
However, Feynman was also famous for "proof by intimidation" if you caught him out on something he didn't understand.
There is another element beyond explaining clearly, and that is that people tend to remember and relate to tangible examples better than abstractions. Metaphors are great memory devices even for people who are not dumb or uneducated.
The minimum education level for the group I work in is a STEM bachelor's degree. The mode is probably a STEM masters with 5-10 years of experience. And, within the "small" group, everyone is a STEM PhD, MD, or both. We use a lot of metaphors, partially because some of the stuff we're talking about doesn't have a name yet, and we are still trying to figure out what the important properties are.
"Talk to them like they're five" when they're adults that can figure out that they're being talked down upon is a quick way to alienate the crowd even more.
If instead you mean to use more common words and to make concepts relatable to everyday life - that usually works out pretty well in my experience. It's not an easy thing to do either for the "smart" leader.
If instead you mean to use more common words and to make concepts relatable to everyday life - that usually works out pretty well in my experience. It's not an easy thing to do either for the "smart" leader.
A smart leader need more than technical/logical intelligence. They need emotional intelligence and charismatic/social intelligence. Who cares if you can repeat all the numbers of PI when you are not able to look a crowd in the eyes and pick up subtle social cues?
If you're a local mayor or something, that might work. Above that level you need the press to communicate it, and they won't bother communicating your carefully thought out message. At best you get a one sentence sound bite.
I went and read some Obama speeches back in my university days. Some of them were quite well thought out, but they mostly got zero press coverage. And that's at the presidential level.
I went and read some Obama speeches back in my university days. Some of them were quite well thought out, but they mostly got zero press coverage. And that's at the presidential level.
It would be nice, before giving Barack Obama as an example of how to act, to present some evidence that he was an exception to this trend. For example, was his IQ significantly above 120? I'm not saying it was or wasn't, or that he was or wasn't perceived as an effective leader, but they give no reason why this data point should be an example to follow.
In Thinking, Fast and Slow, David Kahneman writes about "peak-end rule" - people tend to rate experiences by their peak level of emotion during the experience, and by the way experiences end.
My takeaway is if you want people to remember an experience positively, what matters is a high peak of pleasure, and to have a good end.
These are places where clever metaphors can help.
My takeaway is if you want people to remember an experience positively, what matters is a high peak of pleasure, and to have a good end.
These are places where clever metaphors can help.
There is a simpler explanation. It is the Peter principle.
A person is promoted until failure. All else being equal, if two people are leaders, leader A will be on average as good as leader B. If one were significantly better, they would be promoted to the next level - eg a retired philanthropist billionaire or enlightened monk or what have you.
If P and Q are qualities correlated with leadership, if P and Q are independently randomly distributed, then a leader with higher P is expected to have a lower Q.
An analogy: farmers who grew 2 truck loads of bananas meet up to compare farms. On average the farms are 4 square miles. If farmer Joe tells you his farm is half a mile wide, you might guess it is 8 miles high, because the area is expected to be average. There was no causation at work — having a half mile wide plot did not cause the plot to be 8 miles tall.
Why should we assume that there is a causal link between high iq and being disliked, when it could be chalked up to correlation between factors of an equivalence relation? High iq allows non-charasmatics to function higher than they normally would, just as charisma may make up for a lack of brains.
A person is promoted until failure. All else being equal, if two people are leaders, leader A will be on average as good as leader B. If one were significantly better, they would be promoted to the next level - eg a retired philanthropist billionaire or enlightened monk or what have you.
If P and Q are qualities correlated with leadership, if P and Q are independently randomly distributed, then a leader with higher P is expected to have a lower Q.
An analogy: farmers who grew 2 truck loads of bananas meet up to compare farms. On average the farms are 4 square miles. If farmer Joe tells you his farm is half a mile wide, you might guess it is 8 miles high, because the area is expected to be average. There was no causation at work — having a half mile wide plot did not cause the plot to be 8 miles tall.
Why should we assume that there is a causal link between high iq and being disliked, when it could be chalked up to correlation between factors of an equivalence relation? High iq allows non-charasmatics to function higher than they normally would, just as charisma may make up for a lack of brains.
If P and Q are independently randomly distributed, you can't tell anything about Q from the value of P.
... unless the sample being examined was selected for being above average in at least one of P or Q. In such a sample, P and Q will be anti-correlated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson's_paradox
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson's_paradox
Ok, that actually makes sense. If they are truly independent, they will be unrelated. However since P+Q=LeadershipScore, and all LeadershipScore are about the same, then a high P indicates a Low Q. The connection between the two only exists because of that third piece of information, LeadershipScore, being held constant. The only part I disagree with is that LeadershipScore will be roughly the same in reality, I think a quick glance at the world's leaders shows some are clearly better in most ways than others.
It should be P+Q = L (another random variable) >= THRESHOLD_TO_BE_ACCEPTED_AS_LEADER
That's um... neither how stats nor reasoning works :(
Can you elaborate on what’s wrong with his comment? The Peter principle looks like it has some legs (after a couple minutes of searching), and the analogy sounds reasonable to me.
On the second part I can kind of follow your argument. But what has this got to do with the Peter Principle? I didn't see the argument being tied back to people being promoted until incompetence, which is not even what the article suggests. But the P and Q argument does make sense. IQ is helpful, charisma is helpful. If you have a lot of charisma you need less IQ to get there.
I find that part of the argument statistically sound.
I find that part of the argument statistically sound.
Sure. Just heads up, I won't comment on the Peter principal, as I view both the definition of leadership and the complexities surrounding it far too complex to sum up in a simple parable, though I'm sure anyone with real world experience thinks it has some legs.
Paragraph 2, about the person being promoted until failure, I can't gleam any explanatory content from, myself. Then there's this sentence:
"If P and Q are qualities correlated with leadership, if P and Q are independently randomly distributed, then a leader with higher P is expected to have a lower Q."
This is false. You don't have variables that are simultaneously independent and let you say something about one based on the other. Its like saying "there is and is not a relationship between P and Q". Leaving aside the additional gymnastics and problems of having both correlate with leadership...
I could go into a discussion about expected values, averages, etc, but I can't tell what farmer banana P's and Q's have to do with the price of fish or peter's principal, so I don't think the language in the original is well specified enough for there to be much benefit to doing so...
Paragraph 2, about the person being promoted until failure, I can't gleam any explanatory content from, myself. Then there's this sentence:
"If P and Q are qualities correlated with leadership, if P and Q are independently randomly distributed, then a leader with higher P is expected to have a lower Q."
This is false. You don't have variables that are simultaneously independent and let you say something about one based on the other. Its like saying "there is and is not a relationship between P and Q". Leaving aside the additional gymnastics and problems of having both correlate with leadership...
I could go into a discussion about expected values, averages, etc, but I can't tell what farmer banana P's and Q's have to do with the price of fish or peter's principal, so I don't think the language in the original is well specified enough for there to be much benefit to doing so...
You forget that "then a leader with higher P is expected to have a lower Q." is conditional on "being a leader".
This is Berkson's paradox.
The statement is saying the P and Q are independent, not unrelated.
P + Q = L (leadership score)
For a group of candidates with equal L, a higher P does indicate lower Q.
P + Q = L (leadership score)
For a group of candidates with equal L, a higher P does indicate lower Q.
In my experience really smart people can be arbitrarily wrong, perhaps moreso than less smart people, because they can create elaborate mental models to justify bad ideas, and someone significantly smarter than me can create difficult to refute arguments that serve as a bulwark against pushback. Remember that sophistry requires sophistication but is still little more than the smart person's stupidity.
Metacontrarianism! I'm always delighted when I get a chance to link to this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2pv/intellectual_hipsters_and_metaco...
It's a bit ironic to me that you linked lesswrong, because one example of an argument I consider sophistic is the quantum mechanics sequence. In particular because the relational formulation of quantum mechanics [0] pulls the carpet right from underneath the argument in a rather dramatic way.
[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/
[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/
To readers wondering if they should click the link: you should!
Oooh, I like that a lot. Many people whose political views I find offensive are people who would identify themselves as intelligent, while generally their views on things seem pretty facile.
People mostly, I think, believe what they want to believe regardless of intellect. Their reasons for doing so are more advanced among the more intelligent. Only when we don't care which of some mutually exclusive ideas are true do we use our intellect to decide.
Related: 'George W. Bush is smarter than you'. Elite leaders often make themselves look dumber than they really are.
https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
this is a crock. it was a crock when it was written and it's still a crock now. the idea that someone can for 8 years in the spotlight disguise themselves so much so that appear wholly opposite is ludicrous. it takes months for professional actors to produce 90 minutes of performance - the guy was on camera for literally weeks. he's not "smarter than you" this kind of revisionist nonsense is politically motivated - people were saying the same exact thing about Trump before he took office and we are now all very sure it's not the case.
It wouldn't be that big of an act. Even smart people can be naturally inarticulate. And a big part of the reason he was perceived as being dumb wasn't even him saying stupid things, it was just him saying things in a way that was stereotypically associated with lack of intelligence.
He said plenty of seemingly stupid things too, but in hindsight, they have been more deliberately dishonest then stupid.
Possibly, very possibly you're wrong. You're operating on superficial impression and comparing that to people who know him?
Part of the reason he is blamed for stupid decisions is that he never sloughed off responsibility. (Unlike some certain other recent presidents and president wanna-bes)
Part of the reason he is blamed for stupid decisions is that he never sloughed off responsibility. (Unlike some certain other recent presidents and president wanna-bes)
Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. Trump is smart. I would be in literal, not figurative, disbelief if any president in the history of modern US weren't. The competition for that position is very sharp and only the best make it. There are many problems with Trump, but IQ isn't one of them. Hitler wasn't dumb either. Being a good demagogue is hard. The strategy and skillset is somewhat different to ordinary politics, but don't mistake that for ease. While we're at it: Youtubers and fashion bloggers aren't dumb either.
Trump is narcissistic, insecure, mean, ignorant and has no honor, but dumb he ain't. Underestimating the guy is unwise.
Trump is narcissistic, insecure, mean, ignorant and has no honor, but dumb he ain't. Underestimating the guy is unwise.
>Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. Trump is smart.
I think you're attributing to intelligence what can easily be explained by money. Give me a few billion and a decade to turn my name into a brand then it will be a fair comparison.
I think you're attributing to intelligence what can easily be explained by money. Give me a few billion and a decade to turn my name into a brand then it will be a fair comparison.
Some of Trump's advisers are not to be underestimated. Their brilliance is in using Trump -- who has off the charts emotional intelligence -- as a president. They frame the issues, he taunts and captivates the press.
I would point to the incredible power struggle in the white house as a product of the undue behind-the-scenes influence.
I would point to the incredible power struggle in the white house as a product of the undue behind-the-scenes influence.
Good point. I suspect Trump doesn't care about most issues, so GOP and administration gets free reign on those. I suspect that's part of why he hasn't been impeached and part of the benefits package of working for the administration.
>Some of Trump's advisers are not to be underestimated. Their brilliance is in using Trump -- who has off the charts emotional intelligence -- as a president. They frame the issues, he taunts and captivates the press.
I like that you are one of the few people who seem to pick that up. The setup is almost the same for Russian political establishment, and as you see it worked with devastating efficiency.
I like that you are one of the few people who seem to pick that up. The setup is almost the same for Russian political establishment, and as you see it worked with devastating efficiency.
> Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not. Trump is smart.
I think you mean rich—from below market returns on inherited wealth—and well-connected (as a result of the former) and a celebrity (largely also a result of the first item, combined with America’s idolization of wealth, both recently and more particularly in the 1980s when he established his celebrity status.)
I think you mean rich—from below market returns on inherited wealth—and well-connected (as a result of the former) and a celebrity (largely also a result of the first item, combined with America’s idolization of wealth, both recently and more particularly in the 1980s when he established his celebrity status.)
Hitler put himself into a situation where the best option, in his opinion, was to blow his own brains out. So he's not winning any awards for being brilliant. Perhaps being a good demagogue has more to do with luck and circumstance than it does with skill and intelligence? Maybe that's why it's not so common?
Intelligence means achieving your goals on purpose. It is something that can be taught and reproduced in others. You can't just wait for entropy to spontaneously arrange for your success and claim to be a genius, even if it works the one time you try it.
Intelligence means achieving your goals on purpose. It is something that can be taught and reproduced in others. You can't just wait for entropy to spontaneously arrange for your success and claim to be a genius, even if it works the one time you try it.
Your definition of intelligence is quite unorthodox and so is idea that brilliance somehow excludes suicide or risk taking or over confidence - all things that can make you loose big time.
Hitler ability to speak was not luck. It was work, skill and talent. And world did not just spontaneously arranged itself for them to get power, Hitler took a lot of calculated deeps to make it so, it is not like he was only one trying to get that power. Saying that it was nothing but luck is ahistorical. Not that it makes him any less immoral.
Hitler ability to speak was not luck. It was work, skill and talent. And world did not just spontaneously arranged itself for them to get power, Hitler took a lot of calculated deeps to make it so, it is not like he was only one trying to get that power. Saying that it was nothing but luck is ahistorical. Not that it makes him any less immoral.
Hitler was perhaps one of the stupidest people to ever grace the history books, and managed to wipe out vast numbers of his own people, including himself, in a completely pointless war of his own making, wherein he managed to make enemies of three of the most powerful entities in the world at that time.
The alternative was a Germany as vassal state under crippling WWI reparations and a failing economy. The war was not "pointless" even if it ultimately failed in its goals.
I'm not defending his ideology, but its important to understand the rational reasons behind his decisions if we want to prevent another global catastrophe. Even without Hitler its still likely Germany would have instigated fighting at some point.
I'm not defending his ideology, but its important to understand the rational reasons behind his decisions if we want to prevent another global catastrophe. Even without Hitler its still likely Germany would have instigated fighting at some point.
so, that's one way of looking at it, it's the conventional view, and probably more correct, but...
Another way of looking at it is that the fighting resulted because France and the allies didn't crack down on Germany when they failed to meet the terms of their surrender.
Personally, I feel that your view (and the conventional view) is more correct, but it's interesting to think about the converse. I mean, we've still got troops in Germany today, right? What if that's the key? It wasn't about economically rebuilding them, but what if, instead the war didn't flare up again simply because the occupation never ended?
Another way of looking at it is that the fighting resulted because France and the allies didn't crack down on Germany when they failed to meet the terms of their surrender.
Personally, I feel that your view (and the conventional view) is more correct, but it's interesting to think about the converse. I mean, we've still got troops in Germany today, right? What if that's the key? It wasn't about economically rebuilding them, but what if, instead the war didn't flare up again simply because the occupation never ended?
It was war for territory, "living space" and ultimately world domination. Effectively, it was imperial project. The other powers were not about to give power up for free. Those are quite clear points.
Hitler did not valued life and got used to violence in WWI. That has nothing to do with intelligence either. Both stupid and smart people can grow to not value life and be ruthless and confident and power hungry and taking too much risk.
Hitler did not valued life and got used to violence in WWI. That has nothing to do with intelligence either. Both stupid and smart people can grow to not value life and be ruthless and confident and power hungry and taking too much risk.
I didn't provide a definition of intelligence, I provided a description of it. The ability to win at dice is not intelligence. That's not a controversial claim.
>Hitler ability to speak was not luck.
Nor was it particularly intelligent. Plenty of people speak well. He just had a podium in front of the right people. People who wanted to hear stupid ideas delivered with emotion. If you stood him in front of his enemies, he would be insulted and denigrated, because he wasn't a good speaker so much as he was good at finding an approving audience.
You're not a great runner if you happen to look around and find yourself a race where you win by moving slowest. If that brings you rewards, you're lucky. Not skilled. Hitler was an opportunist, and you can't learn to succeed in life by following his example. Because luck can't be taught.
>Hitler ability to speak was not luck.
Nor was it particularly intelligent. Plenty of people speak well. He just had a podium in front of the right people. People who wanted to hear stupid ideas delivered with emotion. If you stood him in front of his enemies, he would be insulted and denigrated, because he wasn't a good speaker so much as he was good at finding an approving audience.
You're not a great runner if you happen to look around and find yourself a race where you win by moving slowest. If that brings you rewards, you're lucky. Not skilled. Hitler was an opportunist, and you can't learn to succeed in life by following his example. Because luck can't be taught.
What you wrote is not true. Hitler was very good at reading audience, adjusting speech to them and seeing how they react. His work and actions had impact on that movement sucess.
I would not learn from Hitler, because his idea of sucess involves imperialistic war and multiple genocides. And his ideology praised ruthlessness as a virtue. Has nothing to do with whether he had speeking skill or not, whether he could paint well or not.
Just because he was bad guy does not mean we have to go all emotional and pretend he had IQ 75. That just allowing emotions to win over what and why happened.
I would not learn from Hitler, because his idea of sucess involves imperialistic war and multiple genocides. And his ideology praised ruthlessness as a virtue. Has nothing to do with whether he had speeking skill or not, whether he could paint well or not.
Just because he was bad guy does not mean we have to go all emotional and pretend he had IQ 75. That just allowing emotions to win over what and why happened.
I'm not saying he was stupid, I'm saying he wasn't particularly intelligent. I.e., not an archetypical example of an intelligent person.
> but dumb he ain't
He puts himself in trouble all the time via tweets. That's pretty dumb in my book.
> Underestimating the guy is unwise
I agree with that. Underestimating someone with as little honor and ethics as Trump is dangerous.
He puts himself in trouble all the time via tweets. That's pretty dumb in my book.
> Underestimating the guy is unwise
I agree with that. Underestimating someone with as little honor and ethics as Trump is dangerous.
[deleted]
He mostly gets himself in trouble with the media, and most people hate the media. Trump won because he got himself in trouble with the establishment all the time. Not sure how that’s dumb.
I'm sure at one time he was of at least above average IQ, after all the average person accomplishes very little, wealthy parents or not. But I wouldn't call him (now at least) smart either as to me that implies some kind of skill or at least attempt at abstract reasoning. He does have a talent for tapping into this great unconscious id that I think makes him like an actor or artist in some ways.
> Do you think you could become president of the US if you just wanted to? Probably not.
It is more a question of whether the right people want you to.
It is more a question of whether the right people want you to.
Leaders are between 1 and 2 standard deviation on top of the average. It's been studied already.
> people were saying the same exact thing about Trump before he took office and we are now all very sure it's not the case.
Here is one guy who was "saying the same exact thing about Trump before he took office" and is still very sure it is the case: http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/01/18/fake-news-awards-persuasi...
Here is one guy who was "saying the same exact thing about Trump before he took office" and is still very sure it is the case: http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/01/18/fake-news-awards-persuasi...
Some people probably can, but then in addition to being intelligent he’d have to be an incredibly talented and disciplined actor.
Unlikely.
Unlikely.
You don’t become president of the United States by accident.
No, it is not an accident. It is mostly a matter of money applied with some precision. Brand recognition helps.
So who was responsible for applying the precision and maintaining brand value?
The several companies Trump spent large sums of money on who do that as their job?
I wonder if he had some kind of political connections that could have helped?
> people were saying the same exact thing about Trump before he took office and we are now all very sure it's not the case
Don't be so sure. First, he outsmarted both political parties to become the most powerful man in the world. And in his first year as president, he's been far more effective at getting things done than most. The fact that some people dislike the things he's getting done doesn't take anything away from that.
Don't be so sure. First, he outsmarted both political parties to become the most powerful man in the world. And in his first year as president, he's been far more effective at getting things done than most. The fact that some people dislike the things he's getting done doesn't take anything away from that.
> he's been far more effective at getting things done than most.
You say this as we're on the brink of a government shutdown (a government controlled entirely by the President's party), which has been exacerbated by the President. The Senate Majority Leader (again, of the President's own party) said just yesterday the President is the primary impediment to keeping the government open, because no one knows what exactly he will sign, since he changes his mind by the hour.
You say this as we're on the brink of a government shutdown (a government controlled entirely by the President's party), which has been exacerbated by the President. The Senate Majority Leader (again, of the President's own party) said just yesterday the President is the primary impediment to keeping the government open, because no one knows what exactly he will sign, since he changes his mind by the hour.
>a government controlled entirely by the President's party
Not quite. They cannot easily get by a filibuster.
Not quite. They cannot easily get by a filibuster.
> And in his first year as president, he's been far more effective at getting things done than most.
Citation (other than him or his spokespersons) needed.
Citation (other than him or his spokespersons) needed.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-top-9-accomplishmen...
http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/11/13/president-trumps-2017-rep...
http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/11/13/president-trumps-2017-rep...
Those are BS accomplishments and their twisting of logic is beyond ludicrous.
> The fact that some people dislike the things he's getting done doesn't take anything away from that.
What’s BS about them?
What’s BS about them?
You don't get to claim judicial appointments as one of your accomplishments when the only reason they are there is because another member of your party, who happened to be the Senate Majority Leader, basically said "You Shall Not Pass!" to all the previous President's nominees.
As for "government waste", arguably he's wasting far, far, far more with his golf trips than any that he "saved". And many of those "savings" came at the expense of social programs that, without, will likely end up costing us more.
The travel ban is a giant example of his racism that I guess you could put on his accomplishments, if only to show how brazenly racist he would be in office. Even then, it's initial rollout was a complete and utter disaster, and it was prevented by injunction several times.
Trump has NOT defeated ISIS. Not even close.
Throwing gasoline on an already fiery situation in the Middle East is NOT an accomplishment.
Dooming the US to irrelevance by being the one first world nation to not participate in the Paris Climate Accords, thus ceding our position as leader of the world, is also NOT an accomplishment.
As for "government waste", arguably he's wasting far, far, far more with his golf trips than any that he "saved". And many of those "savings" came at the expense of social programs that, without, will likely end up costing us more.
The travel ban is a giant example of his racism that I guess you could put on his accomplishments, if only to show how brazenly racist he would be in office. Even then, it's initial rollout was a complete and utter disaster, and it was prevented by injunction several times.
Trump has NOT defeated ISIS. Not even close.
Throwing gasoline on an already fiery situation in the Middle East is NOT an accomplishment.
Dooming the US to irrelevance by being the one first world nation to not participate in the Paris Climate Accords, thus ceding our position as leader of the world, is also NOT an accomplishment.
If the recent book is to be believed at all, we now know that the person that Trump outsmarted most of all was himself. He never intended to actually win.
Just because he didn't expect to win doesn't mean that his victory was a fluke. You can't accidentally get yourself elected as President.
Or, perhaps Putin is the wisest leader of all?
Trump's whole persona is about winning brashly and bigly. It's ludicrous to think that he entered a race he didn't intend to win.
> If the recent book is to be believed at all
It isn't to be believed, literally at all.
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/367902-dont-believe-m...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/03/mi...
> If the recent book is to be believed at all
It isn't to be believed, literally at all.
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/367902-dont-believe-m...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/03/mi...
"by Sebastian Gorka"
Yeah, no thanks. I'll believe 100% of the book before I believe 0.01% of what Gorka spouts.
Yeah, no thanks. I'll believe 100% of the book before I believe 0.01% of what Gorka spouts.
Well that’s silly, but you also chose to ignore the other link.
GWB was certainly not a dummy or an idiot if we mean cognitive ability like IQ. Becoming even mediocre pilot for F-102 Delta Dagger requires quick learning ability.
GWB started as a young, affluent and connected person who didn't have to exhort himself intellectually and he continued that way. Him being dummy was him being ignorant and never developing required skills.
GWB started as a young, affluent and connected person who didn't have to exhort himself intellectually and he continued that way. Him being dummy was him being ignorant and never developing required skills.
Well, John Kerry had a privileged upbringing and always gives out a 'smart' vibe. But he did worse academically than Bush.
Yale for the privileged was a way to connect and have a good time.
Both of them continued studying. Kerry received J.D, passed bar exam and worked as a prosecutor. GWB received MBA from HBS.
Both of them continued studying. Kerry received J.D, passed bar exam and worked as a prosecutor. GWB received MBA from HBS.
Great article. Especially the bit about the creation of the GWB caricature.
People are so beholden to the idea that he was an idiot that almost no amount of evidence will change that.
People are so beholden to the idea that he was an idiot that almost no amount of evidence will change that.
GWB may be intelligent, but he demonstrated very little of it during his tenure in office.
The Iraq war was architected by Cheney / Rumsfeld, Bush playing an incidental part at best. The invasion of Afghanistan demonstrated a studied lack of historical knowledge and the failure points of previous attempted invasions. Charitably, he does get credit for kickstarting the drone program which gave the US a credible (if ethically suspect) deterrent to terrorist organizations. However BO gets deserves more credit for deploying both the physical and legal apparatus to make routine drone strikes, particularly in places like Pakistan, a reality.
As for the economy, the tax cuts were a core Republican party agenda item since Reagan. Bush did not drive that, Congress did. Privatization of Social Security? Failed. Immigration? Same. Foreign policy? Besides alienating allies via needless wars, nothing noteworthy.
That leaves two things, foreign aid and No Child Left Behind. The former was a legitimate accomplishment and for that GWB should get credit. The latter had mixed results.
Then again an above average presidency does not a supposedly smart President make.
The Iraq war was architected by Cheney / Rumsfeld, Bush playing an incidental part at best. The invasion of Afghanistan demonstrated a studied lack of historical knowledge and the failure points of previous attempted invasions. Charitably, he does get credit for kickstarting the drone program which gave the US a credible (if ethically suspect) deterrent to terrorist organizations. However BO gets deserves more credit for deploying both the physical and legal apparatus to make routine drone strikes, particularly in places like Pakistan, a reality.
As for the economy, the tax cuts were a core Republican party agenda item since Reagan. Bush did not drive that, Congress did. Privatization of Social Security? Failed. Immigration? Same. Foreign policy? Besides alienating allies via needless wars, nothing noteworthy.
That leaves two things, foreign aid and No Child Left Behind. The former was a legitimate accomplishment and for that GWB should get credit. The latter had mixed results.
Then again an above average presidency does not a supposedly smart President make.
He’s a Fool that cannot conceal his Wisdom.
— Benjamin Franklin
> Related: 'George W. Bush is smarter than you'.
While it may be in vogue to flaunt intelligence in certain professional circles, many, including Bill Gates define "smart" as "an elusive concept. There’s a certain sharpness, an ability to absorb new facts. To walk into a situation, have something explained to you and immediately say, 'Well, what about this?' To ask an insightful question. To absorb it in real time. A capacity to remember. To relate to domains that may not seem connected at first. A certain creativity that allows people to be effective."
https://www.thejournal.ie/bill-gates-top-quotes-690230-Dec20...
According to many intelligence officials and former advisors, Bush perfectly fits Bill Gates definition of being incredibly intelligent. The reality is, just because a leader hasn't convinced you of their abilities, that in no way detracts from them.
> Related: 'George W. Bush is smarter than you'.
While it may be in vogue to flaunt intelligence in certain professional circles, many, including Bill Gates define "smart" as "an elusive concept. There’s a certain sharpness, an ability to absorb new facts. To walk into a situation, have something explained to you and immediately say, 'Well, what about this?' To ask an insightful question. To absorb it in real time. A capacity to remember. To relate to domains that may not seem connected at first. A certain creativity that allows people to be effective."
https://www.thejournal.ie/bill-gates-top-quotes-690230-Dec20...
According to many intelligence officials and former advisors, Bush perfectly fits Bill Gates definition of being incredibly intelligent. The reality is, just because a leader hasn't convinced you of their abilities, that in no way detracts from them.
I'm a smart leader, and I am disliked. And it's this exact tone that they dislike most.
They feel I lack empathy, but empathy is why I do it.
And when someone likes me, I know they know we know what's up. That's also why I do it.
I find those who work hard to be liked creepy. I also find managers and supervisors who are paid to be your friend disingenuous. And I'm not going to butter someone up before I tell them they made a mistake. The last thing I want is to spoil them or keep them in a bubble. But I'll also tell them to focus on the problem, and not themselves. Don't be part of the problem.
Being liked is work in business. In our private lives it's personal preference, but you can also choose your friends. Professionally, it's a strategic decision, because it will inevitably involve people you may struggle to like personally.
The prevalent anti-intellectualism does intellects injustice more than anything else. Many would rather be spoiled than informed. They'd rather protect their ego than gain competence. They'd rather be forgiven than corrected for their mistakes. And they'd rather be paid for being who they are, than be told they need to work or put in the work.
No one is paid for being who they are, not even celebrities. We're all being paid for our work. Our image is part of our work, even for non-celebrities.
Anti-intellectualism is also at the root of anti-professionalism. And it's a huge issue in America.
Out of pragmatism, out of optimism, and out of empathy, I am sorry, but I choose to be unapologetically professional.
I am the apologetic asshole.
And that's what's up.
(didn't expect this comment to turn out this way, but I'm submitting it anyway)
They feel I lack empathy, but empathy is why I do it.
And when someone likes me, I know they know we know what's up. That's also why I do it.
I find those who work hard to be liked creepy. I also find managers and supervisors who are paid to be your friend disingenuous. And I'm not going to butter someone up before I tell them they made a mistake. The last thing I want is to spoil them or keep them in a bubble. But I'll also tell them to focus on the problem, and not themselves. Don't be part of the problem.
Being liked is work in business. In our private lives it's personal preference, but you can also choose your friends. Professionally, it's a strategic decision, because it will inevitably involve people you may struggle to like personally.
The prevalent anti-intellectualism does intellects injustice more than anything else. Many would rather be spoiled than informed. They'd rather protect their ego than gain competence. They'd rather be forgiven than corrected for their mistakes. And they'd rather be paid for being who they are, than be told they need to work or put in the work.
No one is paid for being who they are, not even celebrities. We're all being paid for our work. Our image is part of our work, even for non-celebrities.
Anti-intellectualism is also at the root of anti-professionalism. And it's a huge issue in America.
Out of pragmatism, out of optimism, and out of empathy, I am sorry, but I choose to be unapologetically professional.
I am the apologetic asshole.
And that's what's up.
(didn't expect this comment to turn out this way, but I'm submitting it anyway)
My takeaway was that people don't like leaders that can't relate to them.
Obama related well to one part of the country, and Trump related well to another part of the country.
Trump's case being more surprising since he's tries very hard to come off as a class traitor. ex. Notice his love of the peoples food (fast food)
Obama related well to one part of the country, and Trump related well to another part of the country.
Trump's case being more surprising since he's tries very hard to come off as a class traitor. ex. Notice his love of the peoples food (fast food)
Question is why do we need a leader we relate to? We're not living in tribes any longer. The president of a country isn't likely to sit down and have a beer with us.
You've turned the question around. I don't think it's particularly important that people relate to their leaders. However, if leaders can't relate to (i.e. understand) the people they lead, then you might end up with misaligned goals and motivation.
For instance, if the president of the country is wealthy and associates almost exclusively with and identifies as a wealthy person, then that person might consider their primary goal as president to promote economic growth as measured by the stock market. Some less well-off constituents might rather the president focused on programs to improve access to food, health care, and education for the less well-off.
This isn't an either-or thing; a president could do both. However, if non-wealthy voters think the president doesn't understand their situation or have any policies in place to improve it, then to that voter is not likely to have a high opinion of that president.
For instance, if the president of the country is wealthy and associates almost exclusively with and identifies as a wealthy person, then that person might consider their primary goal as president to promote economic growth as measured by the stock market. Some less well-off constituents might rather the president focused on programs to improve access to food, health care, and education for the less well-off.
This isn't an either-or thing; a president could do both. However, if non-wealthy voters think the president doesn't understand their situation or have any policies in place to improve it, then to that voter is not likely to have a high opinion of that president.
People feel that leaders they can relate to are more likely to take their interests seriously.
It would be better to say, if a leader can relate to the people, then he may be more likely to take their interests seriously.
> People feel that leaders they can relate to are more likely to take their interests seriously.
The statement that if one can relate to a leader, he will take ones interests more seriously is a strong assumption that I cannot believe in.
The statement that if one can relate to a leader, he will take ones interests more seriously is a strong assumption that I cannot believe in.
[deleted]
Given the choice between hearing a stranger talk about stuff you don't understand on TV, you'd choose the one you 'like' more. It's that simple really.
Trump is no more a leader to you or me, than Brad Pitt. It's just some person on TV you never come in contact with.
A better question is why is there voting for a president, by people who don't understand anything about what it takes to be good at that job. Absolutely nothing for the vast majority.
Trump is no more a leader to you or me, than Brad Pitt. It's just some person on TV you never come in contact with.
A better question is why is there voting for a president, by people who don't understand anything about what it takes to be good at that job. Absolutely nothing for the vast majority.
Genetically speaking, we are basically still living in tribes.
Why do developers often wish a manager/superior had technical knowledge? We hope they understand what we're doing and will make decisions with that in mind. We can also accept "hard decisions" as being more carefully considered rather than simply not understanding the situation and costs.
Immediately when I saw the title I assumed this had something to do with Trump. Both Bush II and Trump have been chided as being stupid. Yet their seemingly stupid demeanor is part of what attracts people. When people come across as super intelligent they can also come across as fake, particularly if there is already an inherent lack of trust in a domain like politics. When Trump tweets, his lack of diplomacy and unpolished grammar make him sound like a normal guy just talking about what he thinks rather than an elite, lifelong politician which no one can relate to.
And that's kind of scary. I don't want some average Joe I can relate to being the most powerful person in the world. I want someone smarter than me with a lot of solid political experience who knows how to navigate issues while being pragmatic enough to get stuff done. Being president of the US isn't like being a plumber.
If you believe this you will always get a technocrat with a great resume who has spent years enforcing the status quo, and, once elected, will do nothing to change it. If you want anything to be better you need to move away from gatekeeping "qualifications" because they are always bestowed upon proponents of business as usual by proponents of business as usual. What does "smart" mean? They went to Harvard and are therefore best buddies with the ultrawealthy and elites of society? The pundit class says they're smart? Rarely, once in 200 years, you'll get lucky with this approach and land on a class traitor and hero like FDR, but you're actively selecting away from that on purpose.
For a leader, you want a strong vision for the future, passion, a very strong will, charisma. It's ridiculous that people obsess about "intelligence" or "qualifications" -- Obama was brilliant and supremely qualified, how did that work out for us? We picked a constitutional law scholar who continued and made permanent all the constitutional violations of the Bush admin. Friends with the very intelligent economic experts on Wall Street and able to recognize their expertise, he let them run his cabinet and bail themselves out and let them pillage our country's economy.
For a leader, you want a strong vision for the future, passion, a very strong will, charisma. It's ridiculous that people obsess about "intelligence" or "qualifications" -- Obama was brilliant and supremely qualified, how did that work out for us? We picked a constitutional law scholar who continued and made permanent all the constitutional violations of the Bush admin. Friends with the very intelligent economic experts on Wall Street and able to recognize their expertise, he let them run his cabinet and bail themselves out and let them pillage our country's economy.
> Obama was brilliant and supremely qualified, how did that work out for us?
Would have worked better if the Republicans hadn't made it their singular goal to obstruct his presidency for 8 years.
Would have worked better if the Republicans hadn't made it their singular goal to obstruct his presidency for 8 years.
> For a leader, you want a strong vision for the future, passion, a very strong will, charisma.
Europe was plagued with many of this style of "leader" between the 1920's and 1940's and tens of millions of people died for it.
Europe was plagued with many of this style of "leader" between the 1920's and 1940's and tens of millions of people died for it.
Oh yes I agree strong leaders like I've described with the power to change society can be bad. Change is not always good. But a qualified technocrat will not ever change anything much, for better or for worse. Why change a system that worked perfectly for you? That you thrived in? Where you can do a bunch of spreadsheets in your off time comparing private insurance plans and cleverly pick the best one for you and save money, and if you screw up, your child's hospital visit isn't covered and you are instantly homeless! How fun! If you want change, don't pick the Harvard valedictorian "wonk".
They will suggest policies like: what if instead of feeding the hungry we define a specific income bracket adjusted dynamically to the purchasing power parity of... and in the first three words you've already lost 99% of the population who thinks it's unnecessarily complicated because it is: they're turning a moral issue into a technical one because they've been trained to do technical analysis and to not see things in moral terms, rather, to shift numbers around in spreadsheets. They are wholly incapable of stepping back and recognizing that the spreadsheet itself is wrong, not technically wrong, but morally wrong: that simpler is better, that universal programs (like roads, NHS) are better than means-tested ones, that these things which are simple moral imperatives should be able to be explained simply.
They will suggest policies like: what if instead of feeding the hungry we define a specific income bracket adjusted dynamically to the purchasing power parity of... and in the first three words you've already lost 99% of the population who thinks it's unnecessarily complicated because it is: they're turning a moral issue into a technical one because they've been trained to do technical analysis and to not see things in moral terms, rather, to shift numbers around in spreadsheets. They are wholly incapable of stepping back and recognizing that the spreadsheet itself is wrong, not technically wrong, but morally wrong: that simpler is better, that universal programs (like roads, NHS) are better than means-tested ones, that these things which are simple moral imperatives should be able to be explained simply.
Yeah, it's a good thing that the world isn't all that complicated and that all of our problems can be solved with simplistic, well-intended platitudes.
I voted for clinton, would describe myself as almost neoliberal, and love technocrats... but was kaiser willhelm really the kind of leader you describe, or was he more of the "elite club of eliteness" kind? (I am genuinely not familiar with the history, but I suspect the conventional narrative on the rise of fascism overplays the importance of the demagogue in plunging the entire world into war)
Kaiser Wilhelm was out of power by 1920.
But that's the "issue" with democracy. There's a lot more of "average Joe's" than "really smart people" and the former gets the same number of votes (1) as the latter. So for the politician who wants to do something good for his country there are just two choices: pretend to be an idiot in order to win Average Joe's votes, or watch an actual idiot beating you to the office. I'm not exactly sure which one of those to cases we are now experiencing in the US ;)
It's possible that people have an innate tendency to be resentful of leaders who are smarter than them, but there may be other explanations.
Perhaps high IQ test results correlate with some negative trait that wasn't captured.
Perhaps it's unusually difficult for some reason to simultaneously be successful in business, well liked by employees, and really smart.
Perhaps the population of business leaders contains an abnormally high proportion of highly intelligent sociopaths.
Perhaps high IQ correlates with wealth, and employees tend to be resentful of business leaders who earn, say, 100x or 1000x what they earn.
Perhaps on average high IQ leaders were more likely to have goals that contradicted the goals of the workers (e.g. maximize profit at all costs vs. make this a great place to work).
Perhaps high IQ test results correlate with some negative trait that wasn't captured.
Perhaps it's unusually difficult for some reason to simultaneously be successful in business, well liked by employees, and really smart.
Perhaps the population of business leaders contains an abnormally high proportion of highly intelligent sociopaths.
Perhaps high IQ correlates with wealth, and employees tend to be resentful of business leaders who earn, say, 100x or 1000x what they earn.
Perhaps on average high IQ leaders were more likely to have goals that contradicted the goals of the workers (e.g. maximize profit at all costs vs. make this a great place to work).
Yeah, the article is quite shallow. I was thinking especially of your last point. I'm working in software engineering. We have a lot of the smart and driven software developers that you would want in management positions. However they are smart and driven developers because they enjoy toying with technical problems. They enjoy being developers. They mostly hate meetings where we're talking about fluff. They don't WANT to go into management.
There's a strong self-selection going on, at least in my company.
There's a strong self-selection going on, at least in my company.
If you are struggling with such issues, you might find some of the resources at Hoagies Gifted Page helpful. I don't read it myself anymore, in part because it is the smart version of poor little rich boy. In other words, it whines a lot about "Oh woe is me. I am so smart and it is ruining my life." But if you are having social challenges as a smart person, that isn't necessarily a bad thing to be exposed to.
You can also search for social and emotional needs of the gifted for additional material. You could look up Beyond IQ as well.
You can also search for social and emotional needs of the gifted for additional material. You could look up Beyond IQ as well.
i never got the self pity vibe from hoagies' page. i felt it was more explanatory than comiserational. it's a great resource, though.
[deleted]
Correlation is not causation! This article says, very high IQ is anti-correlated with perception of effectiveness.
That might be because having a high IQ causes people to perceive you as less effective.
It also might be because having really high IQ makes you more likely to be promoted, and is independent of other traits (like charisma or conscientiousness) which impact perception of effectiveness and therefore the population of people promoted without really high IQ tends to score higher on those other traits on average. Selection bias, in other words.
Based on the evidence presented, we just don’t know. Everyone arguing over why very high IQ “causes” the effect we are seeing might just be making stuff up, because we don’t know if there is a causal relationship at all.
That might be because having a high IQ causes people to perceive you as less effective.
It also might be because having really high IQ makes you more likely to be promoted, and is independent of other traits (like charisma or conscientiousness) which impact perception of effectiveness and therefore the population of people promoted without really high IQ tends to score higher on those other traits on average. Selection bias, in other words.
Based on the evidence presented, we just don’t know. Everyone arguing over why very high IQ “causes” the effect we are seeing might just be making stuff up, because we don’t know if there is a causal relationship at all.
When I was a kid my family would often chide me for using "big words" and told I was trying to "impress everyone" doing that.
The truth is, I was just trying to relate something I'd learned and thought was interesting and every time that happened I was kind of shocked and left wondering how they'd missed the gist of what I was talking about. My own mother did it. I finally stopped sharing things I thought they'd attack me for like that.
Then, in the 4th grade the city I went to school in had all the kids in the district take a test to measure intelligence, though they didn't tell us students that was what we were doing. About a month later my teacher asked my mother to meet her. She told my mom that I'd tested the 2nd highest in the district. She recommended that I be bumped up a couple grades so I could learn more. My mother told her "No. He'll be in the same grade as his older brother and that will cause problems at home." She also told the teacher that she didn't believe I was "that smart".
My teacher was shocked by that. She pulled me aside the next day and told me about the test, her conversation with my mother, and that she was sorry that she couldn't do more for me.
I'd never given a thought about me being "smarter" than anyone. I knew that school was easy for me as compared to some of the other kids that seemed to struggle but I figured they'd get the lessons soon enough. I never talked to anyone in my family about it. I knew they'd just humiliate me if I did.
A few years later I looked into IQ tests and saw the Bell Curve Graph and where I stood on it. Since then I've almost never, ever, mentioned it to anyone but a very few close friends who are no doubt in the same general area on that graph because the first few times I did I got hammered on hard.
Just a few years ago (50 years later) one of my cousins came to visit where I live now and I started talking about something I'd just read and they stopped me right in the middle of it and said "Why are you always trying to impress everyone by using big words." Brought me right back to when we were kids.
I've always known I couldn't be alone with these kinds of experiences, and this article confirms that, but it got me to thinking about how little this has has been discussed and how this kind of exposes that it's probably a far more pervasive problem than we know.
I do know that over the years I've pointed out why something wouldn't work as planned and been told I was wrong and then later proved right. More than a few times it was an expensive lesson to be learned for those who ignored me. And pretty much every time I was hated for pointing it out.
I've never given any thought to the problem or how to fix it but it would probably be interesting to attempt to measure the costs and ponder solutions to it.
The truth is, I was just trying to relate something I'd learned and thought was interesting and every time that happened I was kind of shocked and left wondering how they'd missed the gist of what I was talking about. My own mother did it. I finally stopped sharing things I thought they'd attack me for like that.
Then, in the 4th grade the city I went to school in had all the kids in the district take a test to measure intelligence, though they didn't tell us students that was what we were doing. About a month later my teacher asked my mother to meet her. She told my mom that I'd tested the 2nd highest in the district. She recommended that I be bumped up a couple grades so I could learn more. My mother told her "No. He'll be in the same grade as his older brother and that will cause problems at home." She also told the teacher that she didn't believe I was "that smart".
My teacher was shocked by that. She pulled me aside the next day and told me about the test, her conversation with my mother, and that she was sorry that she couldn't do more for me.
I'd never given a thought about me being "smarter" than anyone. I knew that school was easy for me as compared to some of the other kids that seemed to struggle but I figured they'd get the lessons soon enough. I never talked to anyone in my family about it. I knew they'd just humiliate me if I did.
A few years later I looked into IQ tests and saw the Bell Curve Graph and where I stood on it. Since then I've almost never, ever, mentioned it to anyone but a very few close friends who are no doubt in the same general area on that graph because the first few times I did I got hammered on hard.
Just a few years ago (50 years later) one of my cousins came to visit where I live now and I started talking about something I'd just read and they stopped me right in the middle of it and said "Why are you always trying to impress everyone by using big words." Brought me right back to when we were kids.
I've always known I couldn't be alone with these kinds of experiences, and this article confirms that, but it got me to thinking about how little this has has been discussed and how this kind of exposes that it's probably a far more pervasive problem than we know.
I do know that over the years I've pointed out why something wouldn't work as planned and been told I was wrong and then later proved right. More than a few times it was an expensive lesson to be learned for those who ignored me. And pretty much every time I was hated for pointing it out.
I've never given any thought to the problem or how to fix it but it would probably be interesting to attempt to measure the costs and ponder solutions to it.
As the article points out, relatability is the key to bridging the gaps of knowledge and understanding between people. I think, at least in the USA, there is cultural pressure against "talking down to" others, at it indicates either that the speaker is an outsider or is attempting to set themselves apart intellectually from their peers.
> "I do know that over the years I've pointed out why something wouldn't work as planned and been told I was wrong and then later proved right. More than a few times it was an expensive lesson to be learned for those who ignored me. And pretty much every time I was hated for pointing it out."
The phrase "nobody knew" comes to mind, especially when used by person of authority to indicate why no preemptive action was taken before some accident/crime/disaster occurred. I mentally substitute one of the following phrases:
"significant barriers prevented the communication of obvious warning signs"
"fear of inconvenience and embarrassment prevented further consideration of the possibility"
"authorities were not able to be convinced in time"
> "I do know that over the years I've pointed out why something wouldn't work as planned and been told I was wrong and then later proved right. More than a few times it was an expensive lesson to be learned for those who ignored me. And pretty much every time I was hated for pointing it out."
The phrase "nobody knew" comes to mind, especially when used by person of authority to indicate why no preemptive action was taken before some accident/crime/disaster occurred. I mentally substitute one of the following phrases:
"significant barriers prevented the communication of obvious warning signs"
"fear of inconvenience and embarrassment prevented further consideration of the possibility"
"authorities were not able to be convinced in time"
> I think, at least in the USA, there is cultural pressure against "talking down to" others, a[s] it indicates either that the speaker is an outsider or is attempting to set themselves apart intellectually from their peers.
Not living in the US: Where is the cultural problem in setting oneself apart intellectually from the peers?
Not living in the US: Where is the cultural problem in setting oneself apart intellectually from the peers?
> "Why are you always trying to impress everyone by using big words."
Yeah, I had similar experiences. I read a lot of books and absorbed their vocabulary, and sometimes it would slip out. I would just say what's on my mind, and that's what other people do, right?
Then I would get into trouble also by pausing to weigh my words, people read too much into your pause before answering them.
Or I just wouldn't say much, because it leads to trouble. Then people decide you are stuck up and aloof.
It took years to present a more normal facade. Plus just moving on to people that weren't so judgmental.
And anyway, over time I have come to prize simple speech, simple explanations. Especially if the concepts are complicated and heavy.
Yeah, I had similar experiences. I read a lot of books and absorbed their vocabulary, and sometimes it would slip out. I would just say what's on my mind, and that's what other people do, right?
Then I would get into trouble also by pausing to weigh my words, people read too much into your pause before answering them.
Or I just wouldn't say much, because it leads to trouble. Then people decide you are stuck up and aloof.
It took years to present a more normal facade. Plus just moving on to people that weren't so judgmental.
And anyway, over time I have come to prize simple speech, simple explanations. Especially if the concepts are complicated and heavy.
Whenever I paused to consider my next words, someone would start talking into my silence and then accuse me of interrupting them when I tried to continue.
I eventually realized that I wasn't bad at speaking; I just had a different style. Some people are more agile in conversation, because they do not think about what they want to say before activating their mouth-parts to make the noises. They jump right in, by using formulaic nulls to establish conversational priority, then fill in the content afterward. Then they hold priority with more nulls for as long as it takes to come up with more content.
I have never been able to bring myself to hold conversational priority by babbling nonsense, and I can't abide listening to a constant stream of nulls, trying to sift signal from noise, so I just don't talk to certain people. The best I can manage is gestural nulls.
It's one of the reasons why I prefer writing to speaking. I suspect I might be able to speak normally with Scandinavians, as I have heard they consider silences to be an essential part of conversation. Here in the US, I am continually frustrated by not being able to speak in paragraphs.
And that may be because most people do not think in paragraphs. A lot of them can't even manage whole sentences.
I eventually realized that I wasn't bad at speaking; I just had a different style. Some people are more agile in conversation, because they do not think about what they want to say before activating their mouth-parts to make the noises. They jump right in, by using formulaic nulls to establish conversational priority, then fill in the content afterward. Then they hold priority with more nulls for as long as it takes to come up with more content.
I have never been able to bring myself to hold conversational priority by babbling nonsense, and I can't abide listening to a constant stream of nulls, trying to sift signal from noise, so I just don't talk to certain people. The best I can manage is gestural nulls.
It's one of the reasons why I prefer writing to speaking. I suspect I might be able to speak normally with Scandinavians, as I have heard they consider silences to be an essential part of conversation. Here in the US, I am continually frustrated by not being able to speak in paragraphs.
And that may be because most people do not think in paragraphs. A lot of them can't even manage whole sentences.
It may help to understand that conversations for most people, about most things, are a way to express and exchange emotions, not information.
There's information in there, but that's purely optional.
You have built-up resentment towards others because you'd like to relate to them, but it hasn't worked out so far. That's not because they 'can't even manage whole sentences' - it's because you're weird :) That's not a bad thing, or a good thing, it's just the way it is.
You can continue existing in your bubble of negativity and resentment, or work towards finding ways to enjoy people's company, because frankly, if you didn't want it, you'd not feel any resentment in the first place. You'd happily sit alone in a room and do whatever 'smart' things that you do, and that wouldn't include posting on here.
There's information in there, but that's purely optional.
You have built-up resentment towards others because you'd like to relate to them, but it hasn't worked out so far. That's not because they 'can't even manage whole sentences' - it's because you're weird :) That's not a bad thing, or a good thing, it's just the way it is.
You can continue existing in your bubble of negativity and resentment, or work towards finding ways to enjoy people's company, because frankly, if you didn't want it, you'd not feel any resentment in the first place. You'd happily sit alone in a room and do whatever 'smart' things that you do, and that wouldn't include posting on here.
Everything you said is true, but none of it is very helpful to me.
> ENJOY VOGON POETRY
You grit your teeth, stiffen your upper lip, and discover that it's actually not all that bad. With a bit of drum machine, electric guitar, and some backup dancers, it might even pass as catchy pop song lyrics. Ford gapes at you in bewildered agony as Jeltz continues the reading.
I can't exactly blame myself for being weird. Which leaves me to blame everything-not-myself for being insufficiently respectful of weirdness in others.
> ENJOY VOGON POETRY
You grit your teeth, stiffen your upper lip, and discover that it's actually not all that bad. With a bit of drum machine, electric guitar, and some backup dancers, it might even pass as catchy pop song lyrics. Ford gapes at you in bewildered agony as Jeltz continues the reading.
I can't exactly blame myself for being weird. Which leaves me to blame everything-not-myself for being insufficiently respectful of weirdness in others.
>Whenever I paused to consider my next words, someone would start talking into my silence and then accuse me of interrupting them when I tried to continue.
I've made the same experiece, but then some introspection lead me to find that I do the same thing. Sometimes what somebody tells you is just so boring. There's no point to their story, no suspense, no drame, no humor. Then your thoughts trail off, boom, you get something interesting in your head. They make a lengthy pause, and you think "finally it's over", and then you interrupt them. They're like "I need to finish my story", they interrupt you back.
What I've learned, but still not completely internalized, is that you sometimes need to let go of your story. Your story isn't as interesting as you thought it would be. Maybe you're presenting it to the wrong audience. Whatever it is you need to let go of that story and continue with that conversation, instead of dwelling on the thought of getting your point across. Nobody cares.
I've made the same experiece, but then some introspection lead me to find that I do the same thing. Sometimes what somebody tells you is just so boring. There's no point to their story, no suspense, no drame, no humor. Then your thoughts trail off, boom, you get something interesting in your head. They make a lengthy pause, and you think "finally it's over", and then you interrupt them. They're like "I need to finish my story", they interrupt you back.
What I've learned, but still not completely internalized, is that you sometimes need to let go of your story. Your story isn't as interesting as you thought it would be. Maybe you're presenting it to the wrong audience. Whatever it is you need to let go of that story and continue with that conversation, instead of dwelling on the thought of getting your point across. Nobody cares.
I already know that nobody cares what I have to say. I still want to say it.
In theory, my thoughts are just as worthy and as interesting as my conversational partner, so I need to at least pretend to pay attention when they speak if I want them to pretend to be interested in my words. If their story is painfully boring, you power through it and use that experience to make your own story less pointless and meandering.
I don't really want to know about how D is dating M with the fuzzy caterpillar eyebrows and the Stephen King teeth, and how V refuses to be in another one of D's weddings, and can't D just collinearize anatidi without continually leaning on someone that clearly isn't quite that interested, but there it is. Now I get to talk about that thing that happened today that was funny at the time, but is only slightly amusing in retrospect.
Some people don't ever stop to hear you, much less listen. There's no point in saying anything to them. You might as well draw a stick figure in chalk on a brick wall and talk to it--or write it up and post it to an Internet forum where nobody really knows or cares who you are. ...Twitter, obviously.
In theory, my thoughts are just as worthy and as interesting as my conversational partner, so I need to at least pretend to pay attention when they speak if I want them to pretend to be interested in my words. If their story is painfully boring, you power through it and use that experience to make your own story less pointless and meandering.
I don't really want to know about how D is dating M with the fuzzy caterpillar eyebrows and the Stephen King teeth, and how V refuses to be in another one of D's weddings, and can't D just collinearize anatidi without continually leaning on someone that clearly isn't quite that interested, but there it is. Now I get to talk about that thing that happened today that was funny at the time, but is only slightly amusing in retrospect.
Some people don't ever stop to hear you, much less listen. There's no point in saying anything to them. You might as well draw a stick figure in chalk on a brick wall and talk to it--or write it up and post it to an Internet forum where nobody really knows or cares who you are. ...Twitter, obviously.
It's not just here in the US, I've had similar culture shock moving from Minneapolis to San Francisco. I've had endless pain at work trying to communicate an idea quickly enough and not being able to have conversations that feel genuine/curious/reciprocal (more defensive). I'm still not sure if it was because I'd earned my respect there so people paid close attention vs. n00b here, or that the culture was genuinely different. I have friends from there/that time here now, we have good discussions still.
Your mention of pause reminded me of this. It's a good read.
http://virtualwayfarer.com/nordic-conversations-are-differen...
discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8205907
http://virtualwayfarer.com/nordic-conversations-are-differen...
discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8205907
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
I'm almost certain people exist with a real aptitude for say, high level mathematics, and no aptitude at all for communicating with others. I may have even met one or two...
I can explain advanced mathematics simply. But then my explanation will take three hours instead of three minutes. Do you want to hear it?!
I rarely use big words when there's a simpler one that has almost the exact same meaning.
Sometimes I'm communicating something quite precise and nuanced.
In those cases I may use big words because it is the right word to use.
English is my 2nd language as well, so if nothing else I think I would deserve some credit for having developed a good vocabulary.
It annoys me when people dismiss the precision in the language as "big words" or "trying to impress". It shows that they are not listening carefully enough, or that they have such a weak vocabulary that they are just overwhelmed by a few words they are not familiar with.
Context is also important. I rarely do that with basic day to day conversations. But hey if you throw some big complex question at me about a professional topic in a professional environment then don't expect a 1st-grader-friendly response.
Sometimes I'm communicating something quite precise and nuanced.
In those cases I may use big words because it is the right word to use.
English is my 2nd language as well, so if nothing else I think I would deserve some credit for having developed a good vocabulary.
It annoys me when people dismiss the precision in the language as "big words" or "trying to impress". It shows that they are not listening carefully enough, or that they have such a weak vocabulary that they are just overwhelmed by a few words they are not familiar with.
Context is also important. I rarely do that with basic day to day conversations. But hey if you throw some big complex question at me about a professional topic in a professional environment then don't expect a 1st-grader-friendly response.
Lots of more precise words are not particularly 'big' words. One shouldn't have to pre-edit one's thoughts to pull out the better word because it doesn't fit into a typical 5th grade education.
I love older British children's literature because it doesn't do this at all- it expects the kids to learn new vocabulary along the way. Check out 'Peter Pan'- the verbiage is no different than if it was targeted to an older audience and the better for it.
I love older British children's literature because it doesn't do this at all- it expects the kids to learn new vocabulary along the way. Check out 'Peter Pan'- the verbiage is no different than if it was targeted to an older audience and the better for it.
I agree.
But I think people who get angry about someone using big words tend to have quite a low bar for what is considered a big word.
But I think people who get angry about someone using big words tend to have quite a low bar for what is considered a big word.
More importantly they're worried about status rather then listening or being curious.
If someone's verbiage goes over your head you ask them to define it for you.
If someone's verbiage goes over your head you ask them to define it for you.
>I rarely use big words when there's a simpler one that has almost the exact same meaning.
Yes, but the simpler one isn't necessarily the one that pops up into your head. Always opting for the simpler word means a less natural dialog flow for some.
Yes, but the simpler one isn't necessarily the one that pops up into your head. Always opting for the simpler word means a less natural dialog flow for some.
Part of good communication is knowing your audience.
Thank you for sharing this story. My son was tested with an IQ of 160. This puts him in the top 99.98%+ in terms of population. I do NOT want what you went through to be what he goes through. But it's hard because no one caters as much for high IQ as they do for lower IQ, it's a form of learning disability relative to his peers. He is 1-2 standard deviations away from "gifted" children, who score at 130. It's hard finding schools flexible enough to cater to his educational needs but homeschooling him robs him over the social aspect of school, and a "regular" childhood.
I don't know my exact position on the curve, but I can relate.
I find it ironic that many of the folks who score pretty high on general intelligence, often have an issue with social intelligence. I spend a lot of time now trying to study human nature in a game of catch-up. What most people seem to learn instinctively, I need to study.
> What most people seem to learn instinctively, I need to study.
This is 100% my wife vs me. I had heard about EQ before I met her, but I never really witnessed the power of a high EQ in action until we started dating. She knew so much about me by reading my face, reactions, gestures, etc. it sometimes made me angry, like she was in my head or something. I watched as she predicted people's actions easily, or convinced people to do what she wanted just by talking to them a particular way. She really opened my eyes to the idea that maybe having a high EQ is more beneficial than a high IQ, at least in navigating life. I always considered it something people said they had because they knew they weren't smart (side note, my wife also has a high IQ, so if you're reading this honey, yes I know you're smarter than me too.)
This is 100% my wife vs me. I had heard about EQ before I met her, but I never really witnessed the power of a high EQ in action until we started dating. She knew so much about me by reading my face, reactions, gestures, etc. it sometimes made me angry, like she was in my head or something. I watched as she predicted people's actions easily, or convinced people to do what she wanted just by talking to them a particular way. She really opened my eyes to the idea that maybe having a high EQ is more beneficial than a high IQ, at least in navigating life. I always considered it something people said they had because they knew they weren't smart (side note, my wife also has a high IQ, so if you're reading this honey, yes I know you're smarter than me too.)
Hee, THe last line makes me think you are finally catching on also.
What's the irony, really... there's probably a reason innate IQ settled around where it did over the thousands of years since civilization started and not higher.
> What most people seem to learn instinctively, I need to study.
I'm curious what part of being socially intelligent you had to learn. Any examples?
I'm curious what part of being socially intelligent you had to learn. Any examples?
One of the better study guides I found was Charlie Munger's book : "Poor Charlies Almanac" One of the things i also found very enlightening was that people often believe people who talk very fast, even after they have been wrong quite a bit.
It may not necessarily be an innate issue with their social intelligence, but more so a learned reaction. Getting singled out by something as important as speech as a child could have lasting ramifications. Having to constantly weigh your words in stressful social situations sounds like a surefire way to develop social anxiety.
What (most) people don't understand is that these kids are not trying to impress! It comes naturally to them and telling them that just contributes to isolate them even more. Being an outlier is already a lonely place.
In the end you can only communicate with people at the same intelligence level (or whatever you want to call it) as you.
In the end you can only communicate with people at the same intelligence level (or whatever you want to call it) as you.
At least of a similar range level yeah. Withing comfortable distance instead of an uncomfortable or insurmountable one.
Much of what you've written here has also been the story of my life. My natural way of speaking is to choose precise words from a big vocabulary. I've been chided about this on several occasions. I definitely get a much better response when I use small words and simple, common analogies. That's easy enough to do in writing, but doing it live is very hard. I have to slow my thinking down and pause to come up with simple phrasing. Of course, other people perceive big words as trying too hard, and small words as natural.
As for the rest: yeah I don't get no respect neither.
As for the rest: yeah I don't get no respect neither.
I can empathize with this. It's a tough thing.
However, the main purposes of communication are to connect with the listeners and to convey information to them.
Speaking in a way that is hard for them to understand makes the communication less effective at both of those things.
The best communicators make a deliberate effort to connect with the other participants and adjust the message such that it makes as much sense as possible to them. This can take a lot of practice and empathy to do well.
However, the main purposes of communication are to connect with the listeners and to convey information to them.
Speaking in a way that is hard for them to understand makes the communication less effective at both of those things.
The best communicators make a deliberate effort to connect with the other participants and adjust the message such that it makes as much sense as possible to them. This can take a lot of practice and empathy to do well.
Thanks for sharing. I quickly learned peers found "big words" alienating. Like you, I process what I learn through conversation. I've found the best way to do it is reach out to an expert in the field or an academic. They are often quite happy to help someone learn about a topic that is important to them.
I've encountered similar from people, though I don't recall getting hostility from my immediate family as a child. Rather, I was praised for being smart. Though it's not like that didn't lead to problems of its own.
> "Why are you always trying to impress everyone by using big words."
The thing is, sometimes I am trying to impress for one reason or another, good or bad. Other times, I'm trying to communicate with precision because I think there are nuances to hand which are important to be aware of. In the later case, it can be especially frustrating. After the first set big words is not understood, my default reaction is to try to speak with even more precision. Thus come bigger words, thus less understanding, and so the feedback loop goes.
Which leads me to my next point. Communication and understanding are key. It is goddamned alienating when communication and understanding break down consistently. And they easily do when there's a gap in relative intelligence between people. I suspect this is at least partially the cause for the results in the article. I've found it easier to relate to people who seem to be of similar intelligence. People whom are significantly more or less so are harder to communicate with. If it's hard to understand what one's leader is doing or why, is one going to trust him much? Or is one more likely to feel suspicious or resentful?
> "Why are you always trying to impress everyone by using big words."
The thing is, sometimes I am trying to impress for one reason or another, good or bad. Other times, I'm trying to communicate with precision because I think there are nuances to hand which are important to be aware of. In the later case, it can be especially frustrating. After the first set big words is not understood, my default reaction is to try to speak with even more precision. Thus come bigger words, thus less understanding, and so the feedback loop goes.
Which leads me to my next point. Communication and understanding are key. It is goddamned alienating when communication and understanding break down consistently. And they easily do when there's a gap in relative intelligence between people. I suspect this is at least partially the cause for the results in the article. I've found it easier to relate to people who seem to be of similar intelligence. People whom are significantly more or less so are harder to communicate with. If it's hard to understand what one's leader is doing or why, is one going to trust him much? Or is one more likely to feel suspicious or resentful?
I went through a phase of using "big words". At some level it was almost definitely an attempt at showing off. Maybe you genuinely weren't, but I definitely was, and I sense it strongly in others.
These days I almost always focus on being understandable. I think it's a valuable skill to give a broad overview about a topic in a field they know nothing about, in language they will understand. Though I'm not good enough to convincingly explain "technical debt" to high level management yet!
These days I almost always focus on being understandable. I think it's a valuable skill to give a broad overview about a topic in a field they know nothing about, in language they will understand. Though I'm not good enough to convincingly explain "technical debt" to high level management yet!
I'm not sure I understand the upshot.
If you were shown to be intelligent enough to be bumped up a couple of grades, you were also intelligent enough to choose the most appropriate language for your audience. If people furrowed their brow at "nodes", "miners" and "Byzantine fault tolerance", degrade gracefully to the a simple story of the "Two Generals Problem."
That pattern doesn't work for everything, but it certainly works for anything you would have been talking about in the 4th grade.
If you were shown to be intelligent enough to be bumped up a couple of grades, you were also intelligent enough to choose the most appropriate language for your audience. If people furrowed their brow at "nodes", "miners" and "Byzantine fault tolerance", degrade gracefully to the a simple story of the "Two Generals Problem."
That pattern doesn't work for everything, but it certainly works for anything you would have been talking about in the 4th grade.
Intelligent kids tend to not be observant with respect to other people's reactions. This is why nerds and geeks were social outcasts (until the terms got rebranded). This lack of awareness doesn't mean they aren't intelligent, it means they're kids. Gaining the kind of emotional/social intelligence ot not geek out like that, or to learn to change your language, requires socialization and experience.
All kids tend not to be observant wrt other people's reactions. The ability to communicate with a broad audience at a young age is itself a sign of intelligence.
My point is that OP was treating the "big words" dismissal merely as a signifier of intelligence. It's also a signifier that one lacks the ability to communicate clearly with others. That's hardly a revelation wrt 4th graders, but it's worthy of reflection at whatever age the OP happens to be now. I know plenty of people who enjoy wearing that inability as a fashion just as people now buy designer "nerd glasses."
My point is that OP was treating the "big words" dismissal merely as a signifier of intelligence. It's also a signifier that one lacks the ability to communicate clearly with others. That's hardly a revelation wrt 4th graders, but it's worthy of reflection at whatever age the OP happens to be now. I know plenty of people who enjoy wearing that inability as a fashion just as people now buy designer "nerd glasses."
I had a similar 'problem' but I really don't think I am very smart. In 4th grade I was reading at the top level of the 6th graders. Other kids would call me bookworm, 'walking dictionary' and told me to 'be human!'
I did it less but certainly kept using richer words with the friends that I knew would understand.
Just recently I sent mail to a work colleague with the content
I did it less but certainly kept using richer words with the friends that I knew would understand.
Just recently I sent mail to a work colleague with the content
For your edification.
I was chided at work recently for using a big word on a comment against a bug report that described a dialog admonishing the user to take some external action.
I had the same issue, and essentially developed a lingo to speak to those kinds of people. More contractions, dropped g’s, “fucking” used as an adjective. It’s been a couple of decades, and every time I switch to that, I feel like an utter fraud, but sadly it works. I can’t imagine what I’d do if that hadn’t been an option though.
Edit: Support group at my place everyone, coffee and donuts will be provided. ;)
Edit: Support group at my place everyone, coffee and donuts will be provided. ;)
I remember once in high school in a kind of AV class I walked past a video camera that was hooked up to a monitor with a live feed. What happened was that as I was walking across the room, I saw out of the corner of my eye a very nerdy person walking across the room on the monitor, and then I suddenly realized that it was me! I walked nerdy! After that, I actually studied the other kids to see what they were doing different, and I adopted two specific changes: 1. Walk with a strut. To me this felt exaggerated and ridiculous until I got used to it, but it was just what the other [male] students did. 2. Hold my books in my hand loosely, as though they might fall out at any time but I don't notice or care. Those two deliberate self-conscious behavioral changes led to a night-and-day difference in how other kids related to me. I was still a nerd, I didn't become popular overnight or anything, but it made a huge difference. (I went to a big public school where you didn't know everybody. FWIW.)
"Act like a dumb-ass and they'll treat you like an equal."
"Act like a dumb-ass and they'll treat you like an equal."
Yess. There is more than one language you have to learn as a smart kid. One is for smart adults, other is for average or worse adults (I'm sad that OP immediate family was part of that group) yet another is for other kids. Same as second one plus ton of swearwords.
[deleted]
You forgot to add "fucking" in couple of places. :-D
A friend from college told me about a buddy of his who took a summer job working at a naval shipyard, assisting mechanics. Those salty old sailors used "fuck" quite liberally. Any noun had a good chance of having a "fucking" in front of it.
The pinnacle occurred one day when they opened up an engine that wasn't working, and saw that it was totally beyond repair. The head mechanic turned to his crew and gave the verdict: "This fucking fucker's fucked".
The pinnacle occurred one day when they opened up an engine that wasn't working, and saw that it was totally beyond repair. The head mechanic turned to his crew and gave the verdict: "This fucking fucker's fucked".
"fuckin'"
There's two problems here. One is convincing people that you're smart and not just acting smart. The mistake is assuming that people can recognize directly that someone else is smarter than them. The more effective way to be recognized as smart is social proof.
The second problem is that being smart is a kind of social power (like being rich or beautiful) so there is an incentive not to recognize your intelligence if it's seen as a social threat. Showing someone that they're wrong usually results in a loss of social value for them. Something like sharing your IQ score can be seen as an unprovoked signal of social power.
If you want to leverage your intelligence politically then the most important thing is to signal your political allegiances first. Generally power is recognized when others realize that it's in their interest to do so.
The second problem is that being smart is a kind of social power (like being rich or beautiful) so there is an incentive not to recognize your intelligence if it's seen as a social threat. Showing someone that they're wrong usually results in a loss of social value for them. Something like sharing your IQ score can be seen as an unprovoked signal of social power.
If you want to leverage your intelligence politically then the most important thing is to signal your political allegiances first. Generally power is recognized when others realize that it's in their interest to do so.
You've got to know the audience.
One of the great unsung benefits of going to a regular public school is you learn how to deal with dumb people. And when you're out in the world, outside of the above-average bubbles a lot of us find ourselves in, there's a lot of dull-normal people out there.
One of the great unsung benefits of going to a regular public school is you learn how to deal with dumb people. And when you're out in the world, outside of the above-average bubbles a lot of us find ourselves in, there's a lot of dull-normal people out there.
It's totally overrated skill. After school you are never forced to stay where dumb people are. You can just move. Average people are easy enough to deal with even without suffering dumb people on daily basis for ten or so years while dealing with your own process of growing up.
Vocabulary is a strong signal of social status (higher education is strongly correlated to wealth or social rank). So care needs to be taken to avoid signalling you are "better than them" to others that rank you as an equal.
Do you get accused of being condescending?
Maybe find someone smart with good social skills whom you respect, and have them watch your interaction with others, and then have them give you honest feedback?
Do you get accused of being condescending?
Maybe find someone smart with good social skills whom you respect, and have them watch your interaction with others, and then have them give you honest feedback?
I'm so sorry this happened to you.
And it is superficially similar to the plot of the book Matilda by Roald Dahl, which makes me think that it is not a situation unique to grandparent poster.
We will probably never know the number of kids out there that never fulfill their intellectual potential because of envy, jealousy, spite, pettiness, avarice, bigotry, or other equally bad motives.
"Prevention of learning" just seems like one of those things that should be considered a crime, but is never punished with even so much as disapprobation.
We will probably never know the number of kids out there that never fulfill their intellectual potential because of envy, jealousy, spite, pettiness, avarice, bigotry, or other equally bad motives.
"Prevention of learning" just seems like one of those things that should be considered a crime, but is never punished with even so much as disapprobation.
Wow. I would never speak to my mom again after that. What she did is child abuse and I suspect this happens with regularity in a lot of cultures. I could forgive actual physical abuse but not this. I was the same way growing up except my parents were very supportive. While they robbed me of the fun of adolescence by being controlling, that is nothing compared to trying to rob one of learning.
[deleted]
my family would often chide me for using "big words"...
The truth is, I was just trying to relate something I'd learned...
However, keep in mind that communication goes both ways. If the way you speak and carry yourself bothers your audience, then you should change the way you speak around them.
As an immigrant, I have thought about this a lot. Changing the way I speak isn't necessarily, as Holden Caulfield calls it, "being a phony". I can speak a completely different language in order to relate my thoughts to different peoples. It's not a stretch to choose different english words to help my partner understand me.
With the best kind of leader, when the work is finished, the people all say, "We did it ourselves."
~Tao Te Ching
~Tao Te Ching
Maybe I'm just dumb. But I read tfa twice now, and I can't find a hint of an explanation. If I read an article is titled "Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders" I expect to read about why people dislike really smart leaders. I feel that perhaps this article is just clickbait.
I would really like to see this study reproduced in an engineering environment. I wonder if the same trend holds, just a higher set point.
Or the same, or gasp lower?..
The STEM condescension is pretty intense here.
The STEM condescension is pretty intense here.
The article alluded to the point of diminishing IQ return varying depending on the industry - I think it would be interesting to also measure the IQ of the team behind that leader - I wouldn't be surprised to find the tipping point to be some multiplier of the median IQ of the team in question.
The underlying work, published in Journal of Applied Psychology, was explicitly meant to the test the idea that the tipping point is a multiplier of the team's IQ. From the abstract:
"Following Simonton's (1985) theory, we tested a specific model, indicating that the optimal IQ for perceived leadership will appear at about 1.2 standard deviations above the mean IQ of the group membership."
The researchers' findings are consistent with this theory in the group examined ("midlevel leaders", which I think means middle management); they say future work will test the theory with other groups who have different median IQs.
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-14279-001
"Following Simonton's (1985) theory, we tested a specific model, indicating that the optimal IQ for perceived leadership will appear at about 1.2 standard deviations above the mean IQ of the group membership."
The researchers' findings are consistent with this theory in the group examined ("midlevel leaders", which I think means middle management); they say future work will test the theory with other groups who have different median IQs.
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-14279-001
I am put off by the circumstance that in spite of the title, nowhere in the article does it seem to say (nor even suggest that the paper answers) why people dislike really smart leaders.
May be related to this. I have the feeling that white rural Americans dislike "smart" people more than they dislike immigrants, blacks, city slickers and even billionaires.
If by "smart" you mean arrogant urban sophisticates who think very highly of their own intelligence then you're probably right.
Or it could mean more cosmopolitan dwellers who understand living in a connected, diverse world that's always changing better than your average rural dweller.
How would they identify that quality enough to dislike it? I'll tell you how: the smugness.
In defense of your average rural dweller, things really do move a lot more slowly in rural areas in comparison to metropolises. There's less diversity as well. So, you know, please take it easy on us dumb hicks out in the sticks. We're less connected, sure, but we're getting there.
No one I met in Appalachia or other parts of rural America was remotely mean to me when I was biking across the country after college.
[deleted]
Simplest answer: IQ doesn't measure inter-personal skills, and people who are really good at one type of thing (measurable by IQ) are often not as good at other things (various proposed metrics of social intelligence).
Anecdotally, I've found the opposite. People who are smart tend to be good at lots of things.
Here, smart means intellectual quality and their subject on leadership is private profit making. Why the rest of us should like those smart (highly intellectual, however their interest lies in their own profit) leader?
I'd like to see the study on the subject of public/social interest and I think that the result will be different.
I'd like to see the study on the subject of public/social interest and I think that the result will be different.
I'm not sure if I would buy this conclusion without more data - it's quite possible that higher-IQ types are in qualitatively different roles than lower-IQ types in the same study. This would be very difficult to control for because if you do control such that you're comparing two individuals who are in similar roles but different IQ, you're then implicitly selecting for people who have other compensating characteristics.
Sci-hub link to the actual paper[0]
[0] http://sci-hub.tw/10.1037/apl0000221
[0] http://sci-hub.tw/10.1037/apl0000221
I guess it's not an option that gets widely offered.
Most people would like a leader who is a) really smart and that's proven by "peer review", b) cares for their needs and not some other agenda, c) doesn't hesitate to display all that.
But that's just not who gets offered in e.g. modern democracy setting.
Most people would like a leader who is a) really smart and that's proven by "peer review", b) cares for their needs and not some other agenda, c) doesn't hesitate to display all that.
But that's just not who gets offered in e.g. modern democracy setting.
I think there is "Smart", and there is "Wise". I have been thinking "Smart", as intellectually, is little over rated.
Wise, I dont quite know how to describe it yet, but is a combination of many many things.
Wise, I dont quite know how to describe it yet, but is a combination of many many things.
How did they establish that leaders with iq over 120 are not objectively worse, not just in the eyes of their followers?
I think it's common intuition that you need some degree of stupidity to sometimes make a prompt decision when more intelligent person would rather wait for more data to make better (but possibly harmfully late decission).
If there's a yes or no decission to be made you already have 50% chance of success as a leader even if you are no smarter than a cointoss. Smart leader might take too long to try to improve the odds or to verify that you can't improve them. Slightly dumber leader can decide faster "it's too hard, let's go with my gut feeling".
Maybe 120 is perfect for recognizing that often more thinking doesn't matter but at the same time recognizing instances when thinking pays off.
I think it's common intuition that you need some degree of stupidity to sometimes make a prompt decision when more intelligent person would rather wait for more data to make better (but possibly harmfully late decission).
If there's a yes or no decission to be made you already have 50% chance of success as a leader even if you are no smarter than a cointoss. Smart leader might take too long to try to improve the odds or to verify that you can't improve them. Slightly dumber leader can decide faster "it's too hard, let's go with my gut feeling".
Maybe 120 is perfect for recognizing that often more thinking doesn't matter but at the same time recognizing instances when thinking pays off.
How you define intelligence? The person who knows their audience and speaks in a way that connects with them is more intelligent than one who does not. And this is not measured by an IQ test.
Not necessarily. You might not care about connecting with your audience, or you might be maliciously intelligent and purposefully choose to alienate your audience by sounding smart.
It's simple. People are selfish so they like those which are like themselves and they want their self-images to be successful.
Maybe the "Really Smart Leaders" not the real smart one?
Trump these days is bragging how smart and genius he is, and well, we all know how disliked he is !! :)
Looked up an IQ test to see if I'm too smart or too stupid to communicate.
Apparently I'm too smart. Thankfully that can be fixed! Lead poisoning, here I come! I'll pick up my old weed habit just to be safe.
Apparently I'm too smart. Thankfully that can be fixed! Lead poisoning, here I come! I'll pick up my old weed habit just to be safe.
Don't believe online IQ tests...
It wasn't really an IQ test, it was the mensa "IQ test" where they tell you if you might be able to join mensa based on your results. Apparently it's within my possibilities. You can see it here:
https://www.mensa.lu/en/mensa/online-iq-test/online-iq-test....
https://www.mensa.lu/en/mensa/online-iq-test/online-iq-test....
I appreciate that that article was short and to the point.
Definitely. I really dislike the current trend in article writing, where the author(s) feel a need to start off with a multi-paragraph, tangentially-related (at best) narative about how their cousin's friend's sister's aunt felt this way and that about something, and the actual meat of the article is buried somewhere in the last 1/4th of the text.
They even do that for simple things like recipe websites. I google some food, find a recipe, and most of the time the first four paragraphs are describing the first time the author cooked with saffron or the cultural impact of the spice trade a thousand years ago. You know what? All I want is the recipe for my pressure cooker.
Serious Eats is good about this. They have a 'read the whole story' link on the recipe page for people that really care that a Magnum Unicorn is the best device for cracking peppercorns for steak au poivre. But the recipe page right to the point for those that don't care.
The problem with highly intelligent people is that they have a competition among themselves, and the most intelligent one coming out of those competitions is usually the one with the most measurable success (money) for the least amount of measurable input (work).
Meaning, there is a herd effect at work here, where renomee is nothing and looking down among the less intelligent ones is everything. Thus its a race away from productive intelligent endavours with lots of input (science) towards optimal endavours (hacking the system aka lawyer, investor). Meaning that blackhats among the intelligent always outcrowd the white hats in the long term deteriorating society as a whole.
Some streetsmarts might recognize the dynamic and engage it with disrupting countermeasures before the system itself is destroyed by a upper society where it is not feasible to be anything else then a well dressed game theory con-men.
Meaning, there is a herd effect at work here, where renomee is nothing and looking down among the less intelligent ones is everything. Thus its a race away from productive intelligent endavours with lots of input (science) towards optimal endavours (hacking the system aka lawyer, investor). Meaning that blackhats among the intelligent always outcrowd the white hats in the long term deteriorating society as a whole.
Some streetsmarts might recognize the dynamic and engage it with disrupting countermeasures before the system itself is destroyed by a upper society where it is not feasible to be anything else then a well dressed game theory con-men.
The smartest people I know mostly have widely different goals, and mostly don't use money as a proxy for a measure of success (however I am not from the US...)
> competitions is usually the one with the most measurable success (money) for the least amount of measurable input (work)
I remember thinking this way during my education years, but out in the real world I have learnt otherwise.
> competitions is usually the one with the most measurable success (money) for the least amount of measurable input (work)
I remember thinking this way during my education years, but out in the real world I have learnt otherwise.
The link is broken, FYI.
EDIT. Link is fixed.
EDIT. Link is fixed.
Might have been fixed — works for me.
I wonder how the study was conducted. Was it only iq they tested? Did they test the social abilities of the leaders? It may have more to do with higher iq people generally having less good social skills than people with lower iq's than anything to do with the actual intelligence of the person.
So, walking aboard a frigate with sort of an academic's self-awareness and certainty that the world is an uncertain place, I had to lead a division of sailors who would do things that just left me dumbfounded. "Why would you attempt to drive through the closed base gate?" "Why would you test the 440V circuit with your fingers?" "Why would you go in the engine room without hearing protection?" "Do you realize you installed all the valves backward?" "Where did you meet this woman? No, she can't come on the ship!"
Then you have to get these folks to do work. They're not lazy, but trying motivate them with the bigger picture could be challenging. Metaphor came to hand more and more. And you sort of settle in. You're not intellectually challenged, and repetition and comfort bring confidence, which makes charismatic patterns of speech easier.
When I went to grad school, I found myself using these same patterns of speech to get things done. And I still do. It's always poor form to toot your own horn, but the last few years, I have to say, I've realized more and more, having a hard science degree and early leadership experience are an extremely valuable combination. I have no idea how I'd be doing what I do now without that.