[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.