Why "Smart" People Are "Stupid"

[drwex]

Today's xkcd (http://xkcd.com/c242.html) is funny, but it also illustrates a truism: smart people are more likely than less-smart (in the IQ sense) to make the same mistake twice or even three times.

It's a combination of curiousity asking questions that normal people really don't care about (is that a random thing? is it repeatable?) with the arrogance of the smart (that couldn't possibly happen to me... again).

Contextually, this is part of the discussion about why conventional (IQ-like) measures of intelligence are outmoded or just flat-out wrong. It's part of the science of why intelligence and emotion are really inseparable (and thus why Meyers-Briggs is a load of horsepuckey) and makes me want to get back into reading that body of literature.

Comments

[entrochan.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's *awesome*.

[gentlescholar.livejournal.com]

Depends what you mean by "mistake."

My conclusion, after years of thought about the nature of intelligence, is this:

Intelligence is not a thing. Intelligence is a topic.

It's like looking at two objects and saying one has more "electricity" than the other. If my students do that, I ask, "well, what do you mean? Do you mean more electric charge? A stronger electric field? A higher voltage? More potential energy? Greater flux? Which is greater depends on which thing you're talking about."

There's no such thing as "intelligence"--as in, "the ability to solve problems." There's ability to solve this problem or that problem.

Saying someone is "smarter" than someone else is actually the same mistake as saying that they are "better" than someone else, just to a lesser degree. The response should always be, "AT WHAT?"

[xthread.livejournal.com]

There's no such thing as "intelligence"--as in, "the ability to solve problems." There's ability to solve this problem or that problem.

I think that is a dangerously wrong way of thinking about both Intelligance and about Problem Solving.
Problem Solving, in the general case, is well and widely observed to be a trainable skill. Furthermore, 'Intelligence,' in the sense of 'capability to solve specific classes of problems,' is also well documented (by both educators and neuroscientists) to be a trainable skillset. And let me make sure that I'm being clear - not only are basic math skills teachable, for example, but through practice and education one can become more capable of thinking about math. The brain is, to use a perhaps very blunt analogy, as much a muscle as any other part of our body, and can be exercised and kept in shape or let to atrophy and wither away as much as any other set of musculature.

I suspect that what you want to rail against is the notion that Intelligence is Innate and Unchanging - that some people are Intelligent and others aren't, and there's nothing that you can do about it if you're one of them that isn't. But the response that you propose cements that construction - rather than pointing out that, for most people, and most cases, and certainly for most children, 'smarter' is something that can be learned, and can be intentionally taught.

[gentlescholar.livejournal.com]

That appears to have nothing to do with what I just said. You appear to have completely missed my point.

I am also fully aware of, and teach on a daily basis, the points you seem to be trying to make.

[tisana.livejournal.com]

First, Xkcd is awesome in general...sometimes it falls flat with me, but mostly the geekiness is wonderful. I would totally be the curious type trying to find the pattern of why something happens.

As to intelligence...yeah, it's a hot-button topic, especially among intellectual types. I agree that the way most people think of intelligence (the "shorthand" that most of us know isn't correct, just easier to get a concept across) is outmoded, and not terribly accurate. The particular things I get worked up about may be different from others, though...

For me, I differentiate between "smart" and "intelligent" as a semantical difference: "smart" refers to common sense and street smarts, something that eventually develops into wisdom, and "intelligence" refers to book learning. But the capacity to store or use information, and who's better at it is...arguable.

My other twitch, related to the above, is the problem of "skilled" vs. "talented"--one involves study and discipline, one implies god-given knack that does not require working at it--and how often one is percieved as better than the other.

Question: if you don't like Myers-Briggs (I find it faulty myself), what intelligence models do you like? What do you think of Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences theory?

[drwex]

I generally agree with your points about intelligence. I feel that it's more than just a shorthand, though, because our schools (to pick one non-random example) are still using scientifically invalid metrics to do things like assign kids to groups, or rank them, or privilege them in various ways.

As ckd comments, D&D makes the simplistic but remarkably accurate distinction between INT (intelligence, what facts you know) and WIS (wisdom, what you're able to apply).

I think that the work on MI is more accepted in academic circles than in practical life. I do like the basic model but I'm not really familiar with the details enough to have a firm opinion on it. (Thanks for the book link, btw, I'll pick that one up.)

I don't really see M-B as a model of intelligence; it's a horoscope wearing a lab coat. People who try to evaluate personalities for real use things like the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) and know that even that test needs to be applied multiple times and evaluated as a graph over time, not a categorization scheme.

[xthread.livejournal.com]

I don't really see M-B as a model of intelligence; it's a horoscope wearing a lab coat. People who try to evaluate personalities for real use things like the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) ...

You would probably be horrified how many companies use M-B as a formal part of their employment planning process.

[drwex]

Not horrified because I'm familiar with it. I turned down a job once because they used M-B. They hastened to assure me that I didn't have to take the test and I pointed out that I still didn't want to work there because if that was how they made hiring decisions then there were deeper problems and we'd probably both end up unhappy.

[xthread.livejournal.com]

Let me clarify - not the hiring process, the planning process - 'We need a handful of ENTPs on this team, another ENTJ on that one, and Joe has no business being in that role, he's an ...'

I agree with your assessment that it's a bad thing, by the way, although I know of no company that actually uses MMPIs or anything like it to perform personality assessments. Managers are using M-B because they're trying to get some kind of handle on personality types, and the only tool they have is pretty blunt. It might be a good thing that they're trying at all, but it's a really poor tool.

[drwex]

Ah, no, I hadn't seen that. And you're right, it would horrify me. Anyone who thinks in terms of personality types rather than in terms of people is already one step too far removed from reality to be an effective manager, imnvho.

[xthread.livejournal.com]

It was exceedingly twitch-inducing.
Worse yet, it was someone of sufficient age, ostensible experience, and close personal connection to other key executives that 'he's a blooming loon!' was not an adequate justification to relieve ourselves of the individual.

[rdhdsnippet.livejournal.com]

"our schools (to pick one non-random example) are still using scientifically invalid metrics to do things like assign kids to groups, or rank them, or privilege them in various ways."

This worries me a lot, actually, and I don't know what to do to avoid it.

[drwex]

Nor do I, honestly :(

Now that we're going to move K to public school it's a more urgent issue for me than before.

[ckd]

For all that it just reinforces my undeniable geekitude, I must say that the distinction between "intelligence" and "wisdom" in Dungeons & Dragons character stats, though incredibly simplistic, sure is useful at times.

[chienne-folle.livejournal.com]

What a lot of people don't know is that the original purpose of intelligence testing has been turned on its head.

Waaay back when the first one was made, it was because Alfred Binet was assigned the task of figuring out which kids were underperforming. Teachers noticed that some kids weren't doing very well in school, but when extra time was spent with these kids, some kids benefitted greatly and others didn't. The original purpose of IQ tests was to try to find a measure of intellectual potential that was free of socioeconomic bias, so that kids who were smart but poor could be located and helped to live up to their full potential.

I'm sure the poor guy is spinning in his grave at what they've done to his test.

I was taught to give IQ tests while I was in grad school, and the teacher stressed that the final number was *not* the most important part of the test. Most IQ tests consist of a dozen subtests, and the idea behind testing is supposed to be that the pattern of differences among the scores on the various subtests helps teachers figure out where a kid needs extra help or what a kid excells at. IQ tests are what helped educators figure out that many children who can't read are of normal intelligence and spawned our understanding of what dyslexia is and how to treat it, as opposed to dumping dyslexic kids on the garbage heap.

So although they call it "intelligence," what the IQ test is supposed to measure is the ability to perform well in a conventional school setting. That's all. Nothing else. And it does that reasonably well.

It's true that most conventional IQ tests don't measure a heap of important things, but they were only ever designed to measure the much narrower domain of what-is-taught-in-schools. The tests have been perverted beyond their original purpose by people who don't understand them, as have most personality tests. The MMPI, for example, is supposed to help identify which form of psychopathology a person has when it is known that s/he has something -- it's NOT supposed to be used on random job applicants.

The people who make these tests could almost certainly make up tests of emotional intelligence or suitability for various jobs, but the tests currently in use are not those tests. And the tests currently in use are *not* supposed to be used by anybody other than trained psychologists, who know about the limitations of the tests. But greedy test-printing companies will sell them to anybody with the funds to buy them, even though they claimed that they wouldn't do this when the tests were turned over to them.

It's not the fault of the tests or their makers that they've been perverted to uses they were never designed for by people who are lazy, unscrupulous, stupid, or ignorant.

[chienne-folle.livejournal.com]

P. S. --

The current misuse of psychological tests is kinda like using the CD drive of your computer for a cup holder and then complaining that it isn't strong enough to hold a ceramic mug. And we'd all say, "It was never designed to do that! It's not *supposed* to do that. Stop using your CD drive as a cup holder, you moron!"

Well, psychological tests were never designed to be used in the way that stupid people are currently using them. The next time you encounter a psych test being used badly, just think "cup holder." :-)

[drwex]

While I agree with nearly everything you say in the longer comment (see below for one question) I disagree about the cup holder thing. I use the "cd drive as cup holder" example in my HCI class as a way of helping students think through the eyes of computer users. The behavior is perfectly reasonable once you understand its context.

Likewise, you can't really blame people or call them stupid if you hand them something called a ruler and they then go around trying to measure things with it. People who understand will know that you don't measure edge molding with a seamstress's tape, but you need at least some level of specialized knowledge to understand why that tape and a tape measure differ. Likewise, I *do* blame the people who promote M-B because I think they're a vile form of snake oil salesmen who ought to know better.

Now to jump back a comment: I haven't used MMPI since undergrad days but I thought it was useful as a general measure for tracking a person's mood, outlook, and approaches to life over time. I don't recall it being a specific diagnostic tool for pathologies. Or am I confusing it with something else?

[chienne-folle.livejournal.com]

I haven't used MMPI since undergrad days but I thought it was useful as a general measure for tracking a person's mood, outlook, and approaches to life over time. I don't recall it being a specific diagnostic tool for pathologies. Or am I confusing it with something else?

I think you're confusing it with something else. The MMPI -- Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory -- was the first well-known test that was constructed empirically, rather than being theory-driven. The researchers took a bunch of people who were supposed to be of ordinary mental health and also a bunch of people who were hospitalized mental patients, whose diagnoses were known. The researchers gave these subjects an enormous number of questions. Any question that reliably distinguished between ordinary folks and mental patients made the cut; the rest of the questions were thrown out. Then these remaining questions were examined to see if they could reliably distinguish a mental patient with one sort of diagnosis from a patient with a different diagnosis. Presto: A bunch of different scales, for the different diagnoses they looked at. So a person who takes the resulting test gets scores for such things as tendency towards hysteria, tendency towards schizophrenia, tendency towards psychopathy, and so forth. This test has absolutely no business being used with any sort of normal population -- none.

You mentioned the Myers-Briggs earlier, whose abbreviation is the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) -- is that what you thought I meant by MMPI?

you can't really blame people or call them stupid if you hand them something called a ruler and they then go around trying to measure things with it.

Quite true. But most of these tests are only supposed to be sold to licensed professionals. So nobody *handed* these folks a ruler; it's more like they snuck in and stole something they thought was a ruler, only it's actually something else. They keep trying to measure stuff with it, not realizing that it's calibrated for a completely different measurement.

One of my favorite psychological testing stories involves the army, many decades ago now. They were trying to figure out who should be picked for missions to extreme climates, like the arctic or the equator. Not that they were all that concerned about the comfort of their personnel; it was more that soldiers who did not do well in these climates tended to fail at the missions.

So they hired a bunch of psychologists, and the army and its psychometricians tried a whole bunch of different things to try to figure out who just could not stand the arctic and who would be okay there. They measured body temperature in cold conditions and return of the body to normal temperature after extended exposure and a whole bunch of other things. After extensive testing they found the best way: Ask the soldier. Yep, it turns out that if you ask people whether they like hot or cold weather better, they can tell you. And if you ask them how much extremes of their preferred weather bother them, they can tell you. Duh, just ask. That NEVER occurred to the army! :-)

Cory, who knows she will do MUCH better in the arctic than at the equator

several thoughts

[unseelie.livejournal.com]

-the tests I have interacted with have been mostly silly and useless.
-XKCD- is SO CUTE and often dead on. (not always)
-I have foundt he D&D "Wis VS Int" thing so very useful in explaining certain behaviors and archtypes, I mean - the Archtypical mad scientist has a huge INT and little Wis. Creating a sentient free willed flesh golumn? Bad idea.
-I have found 'computers' as a way of describing intellegence useful.
"this person has a fast processor" IE: thinks quickly
"this person has lots of RAM" :and can hold a great deal of data in mind while making decisions.
"this person has a huge/fast hard drive" " and remembers huge volumes of information and can access it quickly.
"this person does not have the software to perfrom that process.."

Now it starts to weaken when discussing exceptional people - My exwife shauna's language skills - could not be taught, easily. How to learn other launguages from context, how to write with either hand, or ones toes; legibly? Upside down?
Not software easily found or installed.

M-B is just silly. I have changed 'personality type' repeatedly every time I've taken it, and I dare say my personality type changes as a direct corralation to how much coffee I've had on a given day. Ditto my IQ.

Re: several thoughts

[drwex]

Cognitive Daily had a good piece on why brains are not like computers:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/scienceblogs/cognitivedaily/%7E3/105137987/the_differences_between_brains.php

Sure, it's a handy analogy, but it doesn't map reality very well.

[marmota.livejournal.com]

make the same mistake twice or even three times

I'm not sure any time after the first is a mistake; it's just verification. I'm also not sure what it says about me that I'd probably get other people to pull the lever again in order to figure out what had happened when I pulled it ("Hey, check this out..."), but I rather suspect that would acquire a crowd of zotted people eager to learn the result themselves, so at least I'd be in good company.

I tend to think of arrogance as a trait of the over-educated, generally cured or displaced by worldly experience. Such as pulling a lot of levers. Fits in pretty well with your INT/WIS analogy.

I suspect that knowing that it takes at least three data points to plot a trend, combined with the curiosity to seek out that data, is exactly the sort of basic and critical "critical thinking" combination that things like M-B should be looking for, but aren't.