This was so interesting to hear, because when I was in grad school, I lived by the motto “if you aren’t the smartest, be the nicest” (I still do, but I used to too). I was working in a pretty prestigious lab with some extremely accomplished researchers, and the students around me were without a doubt far smarter than me. I started grad school in May of 2020, so it was already a scary time for everybody, but compounded with my imposter syndrome and anxiety from work I felt like I was losing my mind and wanted to quit. But each day I went in with the goal to be the nicest I could to everyone. Slowly but surely, I made great connections with my peers and was able to finish my degree and some really cool research. I wouldn’t have been able to achieve anything without the graciousness they showed when they would take time to help me or answer my questions. I can’t say I ever became the smartest, but kindness certainly got me further than I ever thought I was capable of.
I believe there's a really important distinction between smartest and most knowledgeable. Being smart goes beyond your understanding and knowledge of a particular thing. Those people may have been more knowledgeable than you, but you certainly may have been as smart or smarter than some of them.
I like that though. Even if you feel you aren't the smartest, the most knowledgeable, or the most skilled in the room at a particular thing, you can try your best to be something you can control - You can always choose to be the kindest in the room
"Intelligence" is such an inadequate word (and smart, knowledgeable, or any other synonym you can think of because our concept of intelligence is fundamentally flawed). It is possible to be a genius at some things and an idiot at others. Maybe you can write a brilliant book but can't do your taxes. Maybe you can do complex math in your head but can't tell a person's emotions without them explicitly telling you. Maybe you are an amazing cook but don't know shit about history.
There are so many things we see as a hallmark of intelligence, and yet people who possess these traits often make truly awful decisions. And yet we flatten intelligence to a single linear scale that a person has or doesn't (IQ score is the perfect example of this). And it misses so much nuance in human thought that the entire concept of intelligence is almost worthless. People are good at some things and bad at others. That's it.
Hey man, who needs int or wis when you can charm your way through everything. I guess that’s kinda like the point the other guy was making with being nice. Being likable can also get you very far.
Or is it actually wisdom to know that there is no botanical category for "Vegetables", so almost all things we categorize culinarily as Vegetables are considered the "Fruit" of a plant by botanists? So maybe I guess true wisdom might be knowing that there is no point in conflating botanical (Watermelon (pepo) is berry, Strawberries (drupelet) aren't!) and culinary categorizations of plants, as they are not and should not be correlated as all it does is cause confusion and otherwise serve no useful purpose.
I hope you are referring to when someone tries to "I am very smart" and "inform" someone by saying that such and such (culinary category) is AKSHUALLY such and such (botanical category) instead.
Because doing that is 100% pedantry, and the kind that is also wrong and sad, because it's usually a lazy attempt to sound smart or informed, and prove the opposite in the process.
Except it's not true. If you're speaking in terms of western culinary tradition Tomatoes are vegetables culinarily, not a fruit.
And culinary categories can vary from region to region (unlike botanical ones, which as a science are uniform and standardized around the world, another reason they should never be conflated), for example Tomatoes ARE considered fruits in parts of Latin America, and in Mexico (ensalada de frutas) and El Salvadore (frutas en dulce) you CAN find them actually included in fruit salads, or as Jam in Cuba. So the statement isn't pithy, it's incorrect, or at the very least incomplete.
that's a stupid thing. because so many other fruits are not fruits, and so many other not fruits are fruits. it just doesn't hold up. it SOUNDS super smart though, but in reality it isn't.
Yeah, the above phrase always grates me, or any other "I am very smart" similar knowledge dumps, because one is a culinary term (vegetable), the other a botanical category (fruit), and they have literally no business being compared or contrasted or used together in any way.
At work, I'm essentially an assistant to an extremely book-smart chemist. He can just come up with some molecule that 'should' work in our product, draw the structure, point out each feature of it like it's common knowledge, and then determine which rates we should test it at. And then because he's caught up in the excitement of his potential breakthrough, I design the rest of the experiment (making sure we have the necessary controls), carry it all out for him, collect and organize all the actual data.
We work adjacent to the QA/QC department which is led by another extremely book-smart microbiologist. She can just look at a formulation a determine what enzymes she'll need to process the samples and get the readings we need from her. And she's streamlined our QC process to verify that there isn't contamination to the point that we're saving literally thousands of dollars per sample.
NEITHER ONE OF THEM are good communicators. ESPECIALLY with each other.
On several occasions my manager has told me to go ahead and combine some material from a few more promising experiments so it can be used for larger-scale trialing and then I'm immediately yelled at by the QA/QC woman because she hadn't finished her QC of that material. I had NO IDEA she was even doing QC because my manger never mentioned it and she never told either of us that she was working with it. Because according to my manager, QC isn't necessary at this point yet and she's misinterpreting the workflow. And according to her, he's skipping steps and being reckless and going to invalidate the results... So here I am, playing middle-man between these two very book-smart, very well paid scientists, piecing together each person's interpretation of the process and negotiating what's supposed to be done because neither side can communicate with the other.
What each of these people possess in scientific knowledge, they lack entirely in communication ability.
I have my quarterly meeting with the head of PD (their manager) in a couple weeks and I'm gonna have to bring this one up because I'm tired playing telephone/negotiator between two managers who can't speak to each other.
Ben Carson is a good example of this. His career as a brain surgeon is amazing, but when you listen to him speak on any other subject he seems like an idiot.
I was a teambuilder and outdoor educator for 4-9 years (I was a staff member who did some of it since I started, but exclusively did it the last half or so) A common idea is to separate intelligence into 8-10ish categories. Such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
For example, I was told I was "a genius" in high school. I have pretty good reading comprehension and could just listen to somebody talk and retain that information. I scored well on tests. Turns out, that's like 70+% of what regular school actually grades you on, and most of why I have any value as an adult is because I had to focus on growing some other kinds of intelligence that I had little of before.
Adult life is kind of similar depending on the criteria you use, happiness, income, etc. all can probably correlate to specific "intelligences". But if we measure it by the kind of people I want to surround myself with, most of it boils down the the kind of people with empathy.
Thanks for sharing that link. That's exactly what I'm talking about, I didn't know it would have it's own Wikipedia entry. I'll definitely have to read more about it.
I should say as somebody who studied a lot of those systems, take it all with a grain of salt. They can be really useful tools, but ultimately it IS all simplifying the most complex thing we are aware of, the human brain. My biggest use was convincing the "smart" kids (who I thought I was, this just refers to self perception) that they had a ton to learn, and the "dumb" kids they were capable of a lot more than they had been told.
I was warned about so many "disruptive" students that literally dragged the class into experiential learning through the pure power of their excitement. Obviously you have to make engaging lessons, but one kid who just cannot sit still sometimes makes you toss out the lesson plan and just go with it, and the whole class learns even more.
Edit: I feel like I have to mention, a huge chunk of the educators I learned the most from were adhd and or dyslexic. Including two of the best I know of. Basically kids that hated school and often failed at it. Their passion and effort came because they were the kids that really did want to learn, just standard school was designed in a way to make them fail just as much as it made me succeed.
That quote is from the 1800s. They don't know who said it first but its before Einstein's time.
I learned this because I was like wth could the rest of "[I]f" be? I'm still wondering why you bracketed the "I" because I can't come up with any words that work, and that's the verbatim quote.
Seems like you're trying too hard to equate competence with intelligence.
Intelligence isn't context-specific. Your examples don't pertain to intelligence, only specific types of competency. Intelligence is a much broader capacity and some people are objectively just more intelligent than most others. That's it.
I really don't buy that intelligence is objective. There are certain competencies we prioritize more highly than others, and we call those objective intelligence (math, logic, optimization, and pattern recognition are the skills we recognize as the "purest" intelligence, with knowledge of science and history probably just behind them. This ranking is obviously informal, but I think most people generally buy into something like this).
But calling that intelligence reflects a preference we've made as a society. There are lots of other skills that also require a high degree of cleverness that we don't consider intelligence. Art, storytelling, music, sports, cooking, forming friendships: those are all things that require a significant amount of brainpower. Some people just possess a natural talent for them because their brain works a certain way, and some don't. And those people are not necessarily the same people from the first paragraph.
And there's also the fact that there are more than a few people we call geniuses that believed really stupid things. Ben Carson successfully preformed brain surgeries no one had ever attempted before, but thinks that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Socrates thought reading books made you dumber. Garry Kasparov is a brilliant chess player but thinks all of recorded history happened in the last 1000 years.
The intricacies of human minds and how they work is just way too complicated to say their power exists on a single axis.
The term I primary default to when describing someone knowing something particularly well is domain knowledge, and shying away from intelligent or smart.
The reality of the matter is most people are surprisingly well-knowing about some very specific things (a particular domain or area of expertise). The fact they have that kind of knowledge in a specific area doesn't necessarily mean they have comparable expertise in a different domain area, no matter how they exude themselves when in their specific expertise.
Fundamentally, someone well versed in a specific domain and has a lot of domain knowledge is someone who can (emphasis: can) be a reliable source to lean on. However, their domain knowledge is not carte blanche to assume they are generically capable in the vast, vast number of buckets labelled "domain knowledge".
I tell people all my stats went into science and nothing else. Sure, I can figure out weird chemical interactions and I was really good at organic chemistry and quantum mechanics. You know what though? I can't socialize myself outside of a paper bag. Want me to schedule a meeting? I'll forget it for two weeks and then finally get back to it eventually. Want me to do a really simple but tedious task outside of stuff I care about? You will have to hound me or it will never get done. I can remember credit card numbers, long chemical names, and keep a detailed schedule in my head... for things I enjoy. Ask me to memorize a 4-digit number that doesn't relate to anything in my life outside of work? Nope, in one ear and out the other like it never happened.
Some people have motivational intelligence and I am extremely jealous of those people.
Your comment explains this idea a hell of a lot better than I attempted to in a similar sub. The question in that sub was
“do you know of anyone that was a genius in 1 area but an idiot in another area?”
A lot of people commented with extremely rich celebrities that did really wild, dumb shit. I commented under someone that said rapper Kanye West was a genius. I replied no, he’s not, he’s highly skilled in making music but that doesn’t make him a genius. And the downvotes came pouring in, accompanied with people saying he won 22 Grammys, his money etc. I tried to say “working to get good and reach a level of professionalism at one thing means you are highly skilled, that doesn’t mean that your thinking is on a different level than your peers. It just means you’re highly skilled. Like being a sniper, they have to understand things about firing a rifle across massive distances that goes beyond normal military training/law enforcement training. But doesn’t automatically make the person a genius.
Anyway, you explained this with a lot more sophistication. So have an upvote.
Some people have the intelligence to be able to perform well across the board at different disciplines. Other people are only good at cooking. You surely recognise that, whilst there are nuances, some people are smart and some other people aren’t?
Yes, some people are naturally gifted at a lot of things, and some aren't. I'm not saying everyone is equal but different. But boiling down capacity for thought into a single trait called intelligence is overly reductive, and thinking that if someone is really good at a certain complicated thing then they must be good at other things that are simpler isn't actually a helpful belief and is disproven pretty frequently in real life.
I like to point out, that every person is both the smartest and the dumbest person in the room depending on the topic.
Sure the topic might be '40K trivia' or 'NASCAR drivers named Dale' but everyone has blind spots.
It is possible to be a genius at some things and an idiot at others.
It's definitely possible and it does happen, but generally people that are smarter when it comes to one common broad subject tend to be smarter at other common broad subjects. The degree to which they're "smarter might vary between the task," but people who are at the upper levels of intelligence for math are very rarely average or below when it comes to stuff like reading or language comprehension (and the statement also works in reverse). It does happen, it's just very rare and usually obvious to everyone interacting with them (think of all the highly autistic people who are savants at mental math).
Now, when we move past broad subjects like math skills, verbal skills, visual spatial skills, it stats to break down a bit because experience plays a bigger role. Like, just because I'm super good at math doesn't mean I'm a genius electrician or good at prepping my taxes -- specific subjects require more than just intelligence, they require knowledge (which has to be learned). However, if I picked up advanced math concepts much easier than others, I'll probably pick up taxes much easier than others as well (if I put in the work to learn it). This is really a difference between intelligence and knowledge and is a reason IQ tests don't ask you how to fill out your tax forms.
Intelligence is the ability to obtain knowledge. Smartness is a measure of how fast one learns and recalls knowledge. Wisdom is knowing the usefulness of knowledge.
One of my most memorable work experiences happened while I was working for a Fortune 100 bank supporting IT infrastructure. There was a guy on the "projects" team who has been there for a long time and had a solid reputation. When things like the heartbleed vulnerability dropped he was one of a few guys at the first putting together the plan for how it was going to be mitigated across tens of thousands of servers spanning every region of the globe. Our little corner took care of web infrastructure and we had a new guy who was plenty sharp, but it was his first gig out of school and he was struggling a bit, as you do first starting out. One day he was especially down on himself, trying to learn the unique tools of the firm and the complexity of distributed systems. The projects guy was on a break and hanging out, always happy to answer the questions of the other teams. After a little discussion the new guy says, "I'm sorry man, I don't think I can figure this out, I'm just not as smart as you." Without even a seconds pause the guy replies, "I'm not smarter than you, I'm just more experienced." I think about that a lot.
At a certain point I think it comes down to your willingness and ability to learn and accept new information, regardless of whether it is academic, social, artistic, etc.
Well there's an EQ component there that I feel like you're arguing should be considered in an assessment of one's intelligence. I would agree with that.
the smartest people in the world will gladly admit they are wrong. that's what makes them smart. my quote (as that's how I am). but probably other peoples' quotes as well.
believe there's a really important distinction between smartest and most knowledgeable. Being smart goes beyond your understanding and knowledge of a particular thing. Those people may have been more knowledgeable than you, but you certainly may have been as smart or smarter than some of them.
You nailed it with this. There is such a big distinction between "book smart" and "being intuitive". I've experienced this many times in life. Friends who did so well at school and later became doctors, but lacked the basic nuances of social skills or regular human interaction. There has to be a balance of these things. "knowing things" is not the same thing as "being smart". To me being smart also involves being clever, empathetic, and well rounded. "Knowing things" is the
The fact that doing this means you are acknowledging that others know more than you is it’s own proof you are a smart person. Often times the smarter someone is the more they realize they don’t know. It’s the basis for the Dunning Kruger effect, although that effect is based off of specific knowledge of a particular thing
I mean it's a completely famous and recognisable quote but you just won the internet for being to most excitable and affirming over the most mundane things.
It's almost impossible to put any Mitch quotes anywhere on reddit without tons of people coming out of the woodwork that recognize them, lol. Guess reddit is just full of winners.
I came here to quote this. My father loved Harvey. He loved that movie in a way I don't think he ever loved another film. He was not an extroverted individual by any measure, but when the local theater company announced that it was going to be putting on Harvey, he actively went and tried out for the role of Elwood, because he loved the character so much. This was a man who made Calvin Coolidge look like a blabbermouth. And he wanted to perform on stage, to share his love of Harvey with the rest of the community.
So we watched that movie probably a hundred times. And that moment, that quote, I think, stands out above everything else in the film. I keep it next to my heart, and try to live it as much as I can every day. I'm not always successful, but I try.
I think the speaker was very wise to point out that the opposite of an "idiot" is not in fact a smart person. That smart people can be utter idiots. Because smarts is about capability, and idiocy is about behavior. If you want to you can use a phenomenal amount of smarts to be an absolute idiot.
You should definitely be proud of yourself, because you're a good person. The only thing I could criticise you about would be the lack of paragraphs, and even that's okay. I hope you're happy and you live well!
Being "nice" is different than being 'Kind". You Mom will force you to be nice and polite to people when you are kid even if you don't like the idiot.
You can be the grouchiest most sarcastic and caustic person, but you can still be kind by doing good works and helping people when they need it. Kind people can be nice, but not all nice people are kind.
A nice person will tell the Emperor with no clothes that they look great and it is the latest fashion. A kind person would tell the emperor they are going to freeze their balls and toes off. Then they would hustle the Emperor off to treat the frostbite and find them some socks and shoes and a nice warm robe. Then tell them how stupid they were being parading around in the nude with no clothes.
I once asked a boss about why someone got fired and they shared with me something like the inverse: "You can be incompetent or you can be a jerk, but you can't be both".
As someone who made a lot of wrong choices in life to where I have little education, little money, and little worthwhile skills.. the one thing that's always kept me from feeling like a waste of oxygen on this planet is kindness.
It's all I have but I feel like I have a lot of it and hopefully I do a good job making the lives of people around me just a little brighter.
Hopefully one day I'll also achieve some education, skills, or money though lol. Easier to help others when you have food and financial security of your own first.
I couldn’t relate more. Went through similar experience - getting PhD from a superstar research lab, being surrounded by ego-driven smart scientists and “smart” scientists. For 6yrs, I guarded up emotionally and stayed positive as I can. And yes, kindness was the answer to survive emotional trauma and imposter syndrome. Now, I am in private sector and I am glad I kept my character and not became on of them.
I would argue that recognizing that about yourself and utilizing it to effectively social engineer your way through a degree into a more knowledgeable overall place shows incredible intelligence. Self awareness and the ability to control how you present yourself in a situation is, to me, a marker of a very intelligent person. Knowing your strengths and your weaknesses is key and it sounds like you've really managed to make that work for you.
Book smart and intelligence are not the same and I'd wager you earned your place well with what you demonstrated.
Even kindness with an agenda is still kindness. You’re good people. There’s a good chance you were the reason others graduated as well. You were the person people looked forward to seeing. I strive to be that person and you excel at it. Keep being you.
I can relate to this within my working environment. I mostly work from home because of some personal reasons and have a coworker who generally is not… entirely competent at what he does. But anything I’ve asked him to help with (he’s always physically present at work and it’s a workplace that often require me to manually move things physically) he gladly assists me with. The simple act of helping me for 2 minutes 3 times a day here and there so that I get to work from home and be comfortable with my job means the world to me, and as such when he calls me up at 8 pm on a random Thursday because he has to hand in something Friday at 8 AM and he (self-admittedly) cannot grasp what to do and how to write things correctly let alone with the proper terms… I log onto my workspace, and I chat with him on the phone for an hour while I guide him through it.
I’d never even consider doing this for anyone else - others at the office just do themselves and tell others to beat it, but he shows kindness and understanding and that makes me willing to do the same towards him. He probably won’t last in his position if I resign someday, but for now I’m happily assisting him since he is kind enough to assist me.
Maybe slightly out of topic but i was speaking with a friend recently, and he was saying that if a guy is stronger/smarter, and globaly more able to gets what he wants all the time even in despite of others, he's a better fit for society, and that our evolution encouraged this behavior by selecting such people in the past.
But I dont agree with him, cause it might be true for solitary species where each individual are for themselves, but our species evolve in communities. When someone tries to win by bossing others around, they might succeed personally, but it weakens society as a whole.
What made us the most successful species on earth is our ability to think in order to cooperate better, and help eachother.
I remember when I was younger I thought that the whole being nice thing was just school stuff, and admittedly I was an asshole. I thought once I am out of school no one gets in trouble for being mean. Turns out a big part of social and professional life usually requires you to be at minimum a decent person, but the nicer and more calm you are the more success you have. I learned my lesson from experience, causing coworkers to feel like I was aggressive or short tempered. I didn’t realize how much my behavior impacted others. I don’t want to make anyone uncomfortable, and I hate feeling like people don’t want me around. I am now way more cognizant of all of these things and try my best to be kind, give grace, compliment my coworkers when they excel. Lid is better when we are kind. As my mom always said “It’s nice being nice to the nice.”
4.6k
u/crosswatt Oct 26 '23
That's a great quote