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

[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.