[edw519]

Going to Harvard means I have the very unique opportunity to be around a lot of smart people.

Good for you. Even better for you is the fact that you recognize your opportunity. How sad that so many people in your situation never do until it's too late.

Now, when I say “smart people,” I don’t mean that guy who always wins trivia night. I mean, blazingly intelligent individuals who are regarded as the pre-eminent scholars in their field.

There are many vectors of smartness in both magnitude and direction. Some of the smartest people I've ever known never went to college. You don't have to be a "pre-eminent scholar" to be smart and there's nothing wrong with winning trivia night.

It’s pretty amazing to pass by Turing Award winners and leading political science scholars grabbing a sandwich.

The smarter you get the less amazing that will feel.

Before I go anywhere, let me make one thing clear: I am not one of these smart people.

Hmmm, not sure I like the sound of that. Where are you going with this?

This is perhaps the biggest lesson I’ve learned after 3 years here.

Then it's a good thing you have one more year. Hopefully you'll learn a bigger lesson. (Read on...)

There is an absolutely incredible number of smart people in the world, and I can name a whole bunch of students and professors alike who I know for a fact I will never ever ever be as smart as, no matter how hard I try.

How sad to hear you say that...

The purpose of college is not to become a greater repository of data.

The purpose of college is not to become a better accumulator of data.

The purpose of college is not to become better than anyone or anything else.

The purpose of college is to see the possibilities and put yourself in position to go after them.

You may not believe me now, but you are probably a whole lot smarter than many people, including the smart ones you cite, at something, perhaps many things. And once you put yourself on the shoulders of giants, including your own, you can geometrically catapult yourself into much higher spheres of measure, including "smartness". But even then, so what?

It's now how smart you are, you rich you are, or even you good you are, it's what you can imagine doing with all those "assets" and how you can positively affect the lives of others. If you learn nothing else in college, I sincerely hope that you come away with this mindset.

...but I have noticed one overarching theme among smart people: they ask questions.

Wow. It sounds like you learned something in college that I didn't learn until years later. And I thought I was so smart.

After all, I don’t want this person to think I’m a moron.

Smart people don't care about that.

The intonation of the question and the intensity with which the professor listened to the response definitively suggested that the professor’s question was genuine, and that the answer was of great importance.

What a great lesson. Which reminds me that two of the smartest things you can ever do is keep learning and keep teaching. Thank you.

Smart people challenge the very limit of human understanding, and push the envelope of what’s possible farther than many people would argue it’s meant to be pushed. Smart people don’t take claims at face value, and smart people don’t rest until they find an explanation they’re comfortable accepting and understanding.

Therefore, you become smarter simply by claiming that you're smarter, right? (Notice this is the opposite of "I know for a fact I will never ever ever be as smart as, no matter how hard I try.".)

Smart people challenge everything.

Hmmm, I wonder if "challenge everything" = "see the possibilities". I think I've learned something.

(You know who taught me that? A smart person.)

That's great, but please don't overlook all that you can learn from people that may not seem so smart.

Maybe someday, people will call me a smart person.

The smartest thing you can ever do is stop caring how smart others think you are.

For now, I’m going to keep asking them questions.

I take back what I said before. It sounds like you've already learned more in 3 years than many learn in a lifetime. But you probably already knew that, being as smart as you are.

Thanks for the great post and the chance for interesting discussion. I feel smarter already.

[EDIT: Any notion that I was making fun or teasing OP was most definitely unintended. This was a great post! (Sounds like I now need a <NoSarcasm> tag.)]

[tatsuke95]

>"The smarter you get the less amazing that will feel"

This is something that I'm continually trying to come to terms with. The intelligence distribution is tighter on the high end than most people realize. By that I mean, the smartest people aren't really amazingly smart. This reply, from Clay Christensen (Business School Prof at Harvard, Rhodes Scholar...must be bright!) when asked how it felt to be the top of his field, in this case material sciences, has always stuck with me:

"You know, there's real disappointment. When I was younger, I looked up at the top of the mountain and thought, Wow, those guys are really smart! When you're near the top of the mountain looking down, you think, Boy, if nobody is smarter than I am, the world is really hurting!"

It's all perspective.

[Retric]

I once had this really fascinating discussion with my father. He said, his IQ while not ridiculously high was in the ~1 in 30,000 range which suggests in theory something like 10,000 people in America are 'smarter' than that and more importantly around 200 his age. But, many of them don't even end up at such schools and 200 people can't fill the fill the 'top' schools anyway. Thus, these schools can't be anywhere near that exclusive.

At the same time, everyone bases their internal scale at their level so while he met a few people that where smarter and many where far more educated there was always this feeling like he was surrounded by people that where just a little slow.

PS: He also generally referred to IQ in terms of speed. Most people have interesting things to say as long as the conversation is slow enough for them to follow.

[nsomaru]

Didn't they throw out IQ as a reliable measure of intelligence back in the 90's?

[vacri]

Niche experts often seem smarter. I've known a number of PhD students who are fascinating in their narrow chosen field, but weren't much good once you took the big fish out of the little pond. None of those folks were passionate generalists, though.

[dhimes]

Perhaps it's useful (for what? I don't know, but at maybe for discussion) to distinguish between

smart: how much you know

intelligent: how quickly you can learn

wisdom: the perspective you have about everything you have learned

This works well with hat I've observed: intelligent people who are not smart, smart people who seem rather "slow," and that surprisingly wise person you always seem to come across who seems to know the difference between what is worth knowing and what isn't.

[jamesli]

Excellent observation.

Other than the three types you mentioned, I come across another type. They don't learn new stuffs that quickly. They might look dumb when they are introduced to new things. However, given more time, they are able to think and dig really deep.

Then it occurred to me that they were already thinking wider and deeper from the beginning. Because the knowledges conveyed in an introductory scenario is so limited, they have more questions and they get confused. They have no intention to hide their confusion. Once they acquire more knowledges in the field and organize the pieces into a system, they start showing how deep their thoughts have gone to.

[Natsu]

If they're the type of people who have to sort through the connections to all the other things they know, that can really take a lot of time. Actually, I don't think that you ever finish connecting the dots, but there are a lot of simple connections to make right when you get introduced to something new.

Also, confusion is a sign of learning. If there's no confusion at all, they think they already know it. Whether they're correct about that is another matter entirely.

[dhimes]

Oh yes, I know the type you are talking about. It sounds like what Felder describes as a "Global Learner" (for whatever validity there is to the idea of learning styles).

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILS...

[disgruntledphd2]

Psychologists would probably refer to these as fluid (intelligent) intelligence, and crystalised (knowledge) intelligence.

[Natsu]

People seem smart when they know something you don't know and want to know. They appear dumb when they don't know something you consider easy.

If you use those definitions instead of some hypothetical absolute standard of intelligence, things seem to be a lot clearer, and you no longer have trouble understanding how "someone so smart could be that dumb" or things like that.

Every person who is X years old has had the same amount of time. What they've been able to do with it is another matter entirely.

[TeMPOraL]

Golden!

Also, if I have a 'trouble understanding how someone so smart could be that dumb', it doesn't say much about that person. It says that I do have a problem with my understanding.

[larrys]

"please don't overlook all that you can learn from people that may not seem so smart."

I love that you said this. One of the things that smart people do is learn something from anyone they can about anything they can.

I met a bellhop once in Florida. He had moved his entire family to Orlando. I think he came from some less desirable place up north. But he had enough smarts to realize that if he was going to cart bags for a living it might as well be in a nice warm place instead of a cold city area.

I learned a few valuable theories that I've used for years of giving estimates from an electrician as a child. (I'm not suggesting that an electrician isn't smart only that they don't usually get picked as "pre-eminent scholars" that the OP is writing about.)

[huherto]

Glad you mention this, it reminded me a time I went to the movie theater with a friend. I was in college around 22 and he was about 32 and was one of the smartest people I had known. He talked to the lady selling the tickets, I don't remember the subject. When we left, he said, "I always like to talk with people in these type of jobs, they have a lot of time to think".

[rokhayakebe]

I met a bellhop once in Florida. He had moved his entire family to Orlando. I think he came from some less desirable place up north. But he had enough smarts to realize that if he was going to cart bags for a living it might as well be in a nice warm place instead of a cold city area.

Awesome.

[JamesNelson]

Could I ask what those valuable theories you learnt are?

[larrys]

When someone asks you a price for a repair, quote that single repair only. Resist the temptation to quote other jobs that they ask of shiny ball fashion.

The reason for this he explained (and what I later found to be true) was that if the cost of everything asked for was to high many times the customer ended up doing nothing.

So you get the first job locked up. Once you have that work started or the price agreed to only then do you quote additional work.

[gridspy]

Apologies. I downvoted you when I was attempting to upvote. I wish I could reverse this.

[larrys]

I've made the same mistake as well!

[kevinalexbrown]

I agree that his post smacked of branding - his first sentence read "Going to Harvard means ..." - and he's clearly impressed by branding - "Based on the research and findings of so many of the students and professors here, it’s clear that this trend is no accident."

But your response seems kind of disproportionate. Even if it did take him a while to learn that asking questions at the risk of seeming dumb is a good thing, and even if it took him observing "pre-eminent scholars" doing it to think it was worthwhile, and yeah, his post is ironically devoid of question-asking, why make fun of someone for learning something?

EDIT: edw wasn't being sarcastic, misread that.

[EricDeb]

Agreed, the branding was a bit much. Congrats buddy you go to Harvard and learned to ask questions!

[pjscott]

Let's not be petty; it's reasonable to take his post at face-value and assume that he just wanted to pontificate about something that interested him.

[j45]

It's not what your education/degree makes of you, but what you make of your education/degree.

This false belief turns out so many people who feel cheated later in life.

Perpetual self learning is the only required skill for the truly educated, or self-educating. IT especially, what we learn today is worthless in a short time.

[olliesaunders]

> IT especially, what we learn today is worthless in a short time.

If you learn the right stuff this is not the case. Knowledge in the areas of algorithms, data structures, code and language design seems to have a certain timelessness to it.

I’ve always considered it sub-optimal to become an expert in all the idiosyncrasies of one particular language or domain at the expense of thinking about and trying to understand the larger truths and principles of software development. Idiosyncrasies can be easily referenced; a good grasp of abstract principles takes practice.

[j45]

Sorry, to clarify, I was referring to specific technological skills and not the general knowledge behind it.

Being someone who only understands how to use a technology but not have the base of algorithms, structures, etc, as you alluded to is the example I was speaking to.

Thanks for bringing it up :)

[olliesaunders]

> I was referring to specific technological skills and not the general knowledge behind it.

Yeah, it might sound remarkable but that really is what I personally avoid bothering with, these days almost entirely. But that’s only a decision I’m able to maintain because I don’t have to make a living from software/IT nor do I work with teams. Nevertheless I reckon most people could do with spending more time thinking about the merits and drawbacks of the way they are doing things instead of learning how all the various technologies work.

[groby_b]

Really? And here I was just reading a paper from the '60s.

Being less snarky: It matters very much _what_ you learn. If you spend time being buzzword compliant (and to some extent, you have to), yes, that'll expire soon-ish. If you learn the underlying principles, it'll stay with you for a long time. (I'd say probably your entire career unless you're living on the cutting edge of research)

[j45]

I'm reading what you wrote and seeing that you agree with what I said :)

[speleding]

"There are many vectors of smartness in both magnitude and direction. Some of the smartest people I've ever known never went to college."

This is true, however your comment makes it seem you ascribe to the romantic idea that everybody is good at something. The harsh reality is that the magnitude of the vectors in not independent: some people are smart in almost every way and some people are dumb in every way. I've had to good fortune of attending one of the top US schools and I can relate to the feeling of meeting people where you seriously wonder if there is anything you could outsmart them on. I very much agree with the gist of your post though, and the other points you make.

[Natsu]

I've long noticed something in the same vein: people who are uninterested or who don't think they're smart aren't just uncomfortable asking questions, they're uncomfortable seeing other people asking questions, too. It's probably related.

[AdleyEskridge]

I've attended meetings where this behavior was the norm. It was a demoralizing sight: Large groups of people visibly wincing whenever someone asks the speaker a valid question — even a question whose answer no one but the speaker could possibly know!

"Don't make us look stupid! Stop! Just go along with it! Stop caring whether you understand everything!"

[kragen]

Maybe they wanted to get out of the boring meeting and go back to flirting with that cute 30-year-old in Accounting, but didn't feel that it would be polite to leave while the Q&A was still going on?

[Natsu]

Unfortunately, I know exactly what you mean. If not for places like HN...

[kahawe]

> That's great, but please don't overlook all that you can learn from people that may not seem so smart.

The really, really important part here is: SEEM not so smart, and accordingly, SEEM oh-so-smart

"Smart" is pretty difficult to quantify, let alone compare... just to play devil's advocate here: a lot of the oh-so-smart people might have "nothing" but a decade of experience more than you and an ability to be extrovert about what they do and they might be one of only a handful of people in that field, so might just be big fish in an actually small pond. And have you ever talked to PhD candidates about what is really going on in scientific publishing?

So, question and look at how these oh-so-smart people do things, see their up- but also, especially, their downsides as good and fair as possible. That way you will learn something about people and about yourself.