This is not a very useful article in my opinion. It is vague and generic about the benefits of being curious over being smart. Even the title doesn’t make sense to me, maybe rephrase it as “Is curiosity more important than intelligence?”
> Curios people become smart by accident. Their curiosity simply pushes them into various rabbit holes.
But not such deep rabbit holes that they would become economic losers!
> I personally know a lot of smart people. Some are really successful in terms of income and wealth. Others aren’t. The difference between the two types? The group of smart folks who fail to make a good living stand still.
Yep; they just don't dive into those money-making curiosity rabbit holes. Like what makes people tick. Specifically in those moments. When they make the important decision to part with their money. And give it to you.
You need both, but smartness (whatever that is exactly) is overrated. A smart person can over-analyze every parameter of a job to the point where they waste time, or if they are lazy will rationalize their way out of actually doing anything, but ask Forrest Gump to dig a ditch and he'll just go ahead and do it. Forrest Gump in effect got curious enough to get a boat and start fishing for shrimp and with help from Lt. Dan created a shrimp empire, all while countless masters degrees were serving coffee somewhere.
I love that movie. And I think there is a lot to that point. But, it’s fiction.
And if I may indulge my own biographical fiction thinking, I think his secret is that nobody believes that he is lying to them. Everybody believes anything he says. Nobody trusts a genius. And there is the paradox, a genius can never convince anybody of anything, but a simpleton can convince everybody of everything (e.g. The Usual Suspects).
Intelligence is a lot of different things. If you can't focus, or focus very intensely on the wrong things, that reduces you general problem solving ability. I would argue that being able to focus on the right things is part of "intelligence". We tend to be overly focused on things like mathematical skills, but there's way more to it.
Smart people are good at pattern identification and making predictions based on the perceived patterns. The problem is when pattern identification is not based on evidence. The evidence gathering process is where curiosity is more relevant.
I think it's more like finding something that deviates from a pattern and then somehow tying it in. Pattern identification is a part of it, but probably so much more.
My takeaway is that people who aren't self aware are less likely to be able to change for the better. Which I can agree with. How does one become self aware though?
People with all sorts of personality types will find ways to blame others for humiliating experiences even when it was entirely their own fault though...
I agree with the "humiliating experience" comments below, but how to curate that? One way is put yourself in a challenging environment you (and others) have to confront coming up short consistently.
EG: enter an academic program that isn't up your alley (eg, introverted dev? do an MBA.. You'll learn a lot besides the academics.) Afraid of confrontation? Try to become a manager and watch how you are forced to evolve your backbone. Also, try to get a job at FAANGs or other competitive places. Even failing interviews will teach you - where and why am I failing? Is it tech, communication, composure, etc? Even, try to date beautiful, kind people. Are they going for you - if not, what is it about you that's problematic? etc.
It's a tough way to live in the moment, but it's awesome in retrospect. You evolve and achieve what you would not have - but at any given time you may be more focused on what's holding you back from the next level..
Through the temporary dissolution of ego and other defensive mental constructs, psychedelics can help rewire the brain and flip on some hiterto unknown inner switches. One of which is better self knowledge. It's not a path to be taken lightly or alone. But is has certainly opened up new worlds to those who dared to thread it.
Along with curiosity—which I agree is probably one of the most underrated adult traits in terms of the ability to learn new things—is cultivating the imagination.
Thinking up wild and vivid scenarios in your mind and playing around with ideas and experimenting with concepts is how I've gotten through most of the traditionally difficult subjects I've encountered so far.
I think I found something else better than being smart: a high need for cognition. Possibly better than curiosity, but read below to find the nuance I find in that.
I think I'm a little smart, but not too much higher-than-average. But because I constantly need to think about everything, I'm always exercising my brain, and working on problems that everyone else ignores half their day. I've known plenty of people way smarter than me that didn't achieve as much, because they just wanted to turn off and tune out. Drink some beer. Watch some mindless movies.
I'm going 24x7. So like the multi-billionaire CEO who's only in that position because he works 80hr/wk and never turns it off... I'm doing well in tech (and my hobbies!) because I just can't stop thinking about algorithms and solving problems. My hobbies and entertainment end up being highly-technical intensive thought-requiring activities.
Curiosity is also a trait I've got, but I suspect it's just a result of the high need for cognition. I find that I'm not that curious about things that don't make me think a lot.
cognition junkie. i feel a similar way about how i'm "hardwired". i have a reserved, yet intense curiosity, something i discovered through my courses in uni. once i found something that peaked my curiosity, i finally found confidence in myself. previously, in other schooling settings, despite high-marks, i never felt intelligent or like i was even learning anything.
tangentially, i have a friend who is a musician that was never "traditionally" smart. i suppose he was just never interested in any of the material, so he never really gave much of an effort. once he found music and discovered that he could orchestrate things on his computer, he fell into a rabbithole that he'll never come out of. learning really is all about engagement, something which sounds so obviously trite but so rarely ever implemented in early american education, at least in my experience.
What about the effects of 'time spent on the problem' (ie compounding)? If you are only learning for learning sake, then getting to a "101" or "102" or "103" (to use American college level terminology)is fine I would assume. This might take 1-3 years of learning/study/doing.
But if you truly want to "master" something - then does "constantly thinking about problems" mean you will never benefit from the same 'compounding' effect as someone who has spent 3/5/10 years of their time on that problem?
Or - is all your "need for cognition" - mostly in one domain space (e.g. "Computer Science" or "database structure" etc)?
I was the same. But constantly thinking at high cognition caused me stress. My brain needs more downtime. Now I always prioritize what I focus on and think about. This selective turn off has made me happier and de-stressed.
> I've known plenty of people way smarter than me that didn't achieve as much, because they just wanted to turn off and tune out. Drink some beer. Watch some mindless movies.
Cognition can be painful in a psyche impacted by a history of high stress. Read about substance P neurotransmitters and depression; chemical messages for physical pain are high in depressed patients, and yet there's nothing to indicate that there should be pain. Block the substance P neurotransmitters and you get an antidepressant.
So, I think there are repressive forces in addition to what you're describing above. Modeling the problem this way, it's easier to be optimistic and figure out societal machinery to promote more problem solving by addressing forces like stress; instead of TV watching and etc., since these habits are side-effects of other problems.
Thanks, this explains a lot for me. I love thinking about things and learning things, but doing it too much is just exhausting. I still have hobbies that are technical, but the parent poster's description sounds like a recipe for burnout for me.
Through meditation, I've come to see that my own habit of thinking 24/7 was actually a means of escape for me. A way of numbing feelings and avoiding silence. In the years since I started to practice meditation my mind has become a lot more quiet and I no longer think about work things obsessively, I can switch off much more easily and conversely it's made me a lot better at knowing what is and isn't important to work on.
I do envy the people who seem to be able to stay on 24/7 without burning out, but part of me also wonders if there's still a limit to that and perhaps my limit is lower.
I used to envy people like this, but now I don't because the world wouldn't be as fun without them.
Instead, I feed off the endless energy they emit and try to make the most use of it. Perhaps some day I can figure out a cool trick to be a constant emitter, just like GGP.
I am very interested to hear what kinds of health conditions arose from constantly working (both as a case study and as a thing I can do to avoid myself)
I believe is what it was called. I worked as close to round the clock as possible for 3 full months once and was pretty sure I was having a heart attack.
Doctor told me that it wasn’t serious as long as I didn’t keep doing whatever I was doing.
I haven't been to hospital bed but I've also noticed that even fun and interesting things can burn you off. I have to consciously force myself to focus on things that give rest to my brain - playing Rocket League with my son, going for a walk without my phone, reading novels.
> So like the multi-billionaire CEO who's only in that position because he works 80hr/wk and never turns it off...
I do not believe this narrative that is only confirmed by billionaires themselves. They mostly rely on the work in others for their success, why working more hours would even have an impact?
They work to stay on top of the pile. Working for impact, or for the business or customers is a career limiting decision several levels below CEO with a few exceptions, usually original founders. Everyone else gets filtered out.
I was reading an interesting article about investment banking recently, it was quite clear that the further up the greasy pole bankers climb the less hours they work. The people at the top were only doing half the hours of those entering the profession.
Depends on what you define as work, or rather the difficulty and quality of it per hour.
Example: An accountant who works 8h/d does very taxing, mental work. They require high concentration and precision, it’s often quite boring stuff, but still, they have to get things right, quickly, constantly.
A manager or director might effectively work more hours, but those hours typically have a much more natural rhythm to them. The vast majority of it is communication or preparing for such. The hard part is making the right decisions, listening learning (broad sense), but it’s not detailed and constant.
We programmers tend to complain when we have too many meetings and purely conceptual/communicative work, because it doesn’t „feel“ like work and getting things done, right? There’s a hint there.
For me, 3-4h of highly concentrated programming and testing is much more taxing than a full day of communication/learning. Much more.
I met my first cofounder talking to them over beers. I met my fiancee over a shared love of mindless movies. I've mostly worked about 40 hours a week through my career so far. Now I'm in my mid-40s and I have what I believe to be my ideal job, I'm paid very well for it, and I have lots of time to play video games.
Your path suits you and you find it satisfying, and I'm happy for you, but it's quite unkind to dismiss other people's choices to drink beer and watch movies instead of working. There are many paths to happiness besides your own.
Yeah. I'm fine with people choosing their path in life. I was only referring to their own statements and attitudes. Not trying to come up with some universal code of conduct or anything here.
It's their own judgement. They say they wish they were where I'm at.
But sure, we can say they achieved just as much (and possibly more) because they achieved contentedness or happiness or whatever, which is great for them, and they are just confused?
For me, I think the traits that drive my success, in order, are curiosity, tenacity and intelligence. People always tell me I'm smart, and I know for sure my intelligence is above average, but I meet so many people who are far smarter than me. On the curiosity scale though, as a man in my mid-30s, I still annoy the hell out of everyone around me with curious questions about everything. I have to moderate myself to keep from asking as many questions as a curious 6 year old. And I'd attribute a significant of my success in my programming career to my refusal to give up when I have to spend days troubleshooting, figuring our how to make undocumented code work, or nag people to get the access I need to certain systems.
My biggest generic life advice for people is "Cultivate curiosity".
The first thing I ask about when people want to know if they should get into programming is how tenacious they are.
> For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.
Is a smart person who scratches his or her own itches and lives a happy life unproductive if scratching those itches doesn't produce things (accomplishments, wealth, etc.) that are visible to and valued by others?
Let me put it this way. I've known some very smart people who have led unhappy lives. They did not enjoy their lives of failure. They'd pick the right things to work on, but were too lazy to do the necessary work, and it would just peter out into nothing.
Like one guy who decided that being a real estate agent was the path to success. He studied for and aced the exam to get a license with ease. He quit after a few weeks of discovering that being a successful agent required focused effort, and went back to living hand to mouth.
His life was a sequence of one scheme like that after another, until he passed away young from neglecting his health.
It still pains me to recount this, he was a good guy.
Out of all the "smart" and "less smart" people I know/have known, the ones who seem to be happiest are not those who pick the "right things" to work on but those who know how to put "work" in its proper place.
Success and failure aren't always about money and the kind of accomplishments that society values most.
Every situation requires balancing curiosity and caution, knowledge and exploration, etc. You may be "curious" but you may have a strong fear of failure that prevents you from actually experimenting when you genuinely don't know the likely outcome. Sometimes that keeps you back from important growth, other times it keeps you from blowing your head off.
It's also amazing that in the world we live in currently, you can do very well by just not fucking up. EG: someone born in the 80s could just follow "best practices" their whole life so far and be fine - eg: get good grades, study a valuable major, don't eat garbage, don't marry crazy people/idiots, stay off dangerous drugs, and mainly show up to work, be clean and nice - and you can by now be a very successful 40 year old without really having had to innovate or take huge risks. It's amazing.
In a European country, think Spain, Italy, France, "get good grades, study a valuable major, don't eat garbage, don't marry crazy people/idiots, stay off dangerous drugs, and mainly show up to work, be clean and nice" and you are likely to end up with job paying 40 to 80k (before taxes) a year, which is not bad, but I consider that money far from financially making someone "a very successful 40-year-old".
With my STEM major and a PhD, I would have made between 40 and 50k per year before taxes.
I've historically measured my professional success over many other axis, which has lead to a detriment of income. I was fine with this in my 20s to 40s, but now in my 50s it seems a mistake. When young, you have the belief that you can always make up the money later, or the effects of not having it are small. When it is later, you realize how little of a window you have left.
So while I would agree that professional success should be measured on multiple scales, if you were to run a PCA on the multiple dimensions then income should be the largest principle component.
NOTE! I am speaking only of success in your career. However, since this is where most of your energies during your adult life go, it is a dominant factor in your success in other areas.
The hypothesis here is that there is a trade-off between making bank and living a pleasant life, whatever attributes one wants to associate with "pleasant", maybe low professional stress, maybe time spent with loved ones, maybe waking up when the world is already spinning at full speed.
There might be a weak positive correlation at the population level between (broadly speaking) "being miserable/not having a good time/give up life for money" and "income", but at the individual level what we can say is that there are millions of people in the world making good to very good to great money while having the time of their lives day after day.
I might be one of those, for now. In the future, who knows.
There are places in those and similar countries where that sort of income will let you own a house and car, raise a family and pets, even fit in a fairly cost-intensive hobby such as sailing/horseriding/cars/light aircraft if you don't go crazy. It's genuinely a slightly confusing situation to be in, compared to reading about Google employees making half a million a year - are you living a great life, or falling behind the modern world?
As a person living in a (relatively for the western world) low-cost-of-living area, making a decent income for a low-cost-of-living area, it sometimes feels like a local maximum. It would take a sizeable income jump to offset low cost of housing. No doubt the top world cities are the place to be, in terms of all kinds of fun and opportunities, but lifestyle would be worse there unless or until you'd broken into a really high income bracket.
As someone living in the United States and earning much more than I would in my home country, even though my professional contribution would be the same if the same opportunities existed in my home country (I took my PhD in my home country), there is no comparison between the quality of life I have in the country I currently live in and my home country given the expected local salary - setting aside loved ones, friends, and memories.
If a two-bedroom apartment goes for 200k and after taxes what I have is 25k or so, my financial situation, considering kids, car(s), aging parents and what we call life, would certainly not be one of unquestionable success.
"Sailing/horse riding/cars/light aircraft" would certainly be a stretch.
i thought about Unit 731 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731), there probably were alot of curious individuals guided by fcked up morals. There's a lot going into acquiring knowledge besides simply considering the researcher's intent, subject's feeling are an important thing to consider.
I am of the firm belief that all atrocities committed by "Humankind" should be taught in a "in-your-face" manner in Schools. Only then will people awaken to our baser instincts and agree to steps to prevent exercising them. The current "Politically Correct" etiquette of sweeping all unpleasant things "under the rug" is very insidious and is reminiscent of Orwell's "Memory Hole".
In particular; "Unit 731" was the worst of the worst (even the Nazis were repelled by them). They were granted immunity from prosecution by the Allies and were never held accountable for their unimaginably horrific crimes.
A neutral teaching of such subject would be probably an eye-opener. But there would be a strong temptation to teach only about atrocities of $OUTGROUP, thus basically defeating the purpose.
Not a fan these I'm-better-than-you social media type posts.
Neither is objectively better- I just wish more people would focus on self-awareness and reflection than comparing themselves to others. All of us have lessons to learn.
For my part I happy to be dumb enough to not be sure what the outcome of an experiment is always going to be. Folks both empirically and supposedly smarter will claim to know the outcome before hand. They not only miss out on all the fun of doing the experiment but are lucky to be correct half the time never mind missing out on learning the incidental things (good & bad) that end up useful later.
Every child is born wonderfully curious. Meeting walls instead of bridges sets the boundaries.
"science is a symphony of ongoing fractal rhizomatically-connected feedback loops. something happens and humans go "oh shit, what was that?". then we ask questions and then through making theories and testing them (designing feedback and sub-feedback loops) slowly we understand a new emerging pattern. 1.) the universe responds to something in a new way we hadn't seen before, 2.) we document it, we repeat it to make sure the universe ain't fucking with us, and 3.) that's a completed feedback loop we can pass on: knowledge. we rinse and repeat for more, to infinity, slowly reverse-engineering all the beautiful natural phenomena. this product, our new actionable knowledge, is technology: if i hit these rocks together i get a fire; if i put round tree trunks under some heavy thing i can then roll the thing on top of it very easily ("wow, we can move rocks and make pyramids, here we go!..." "oh fuck, the slavery/misery...") etc., a continuing evolution right into the modern world. billions and trillions of feedback loops. neverending feedback loops. feedback loops racing at us from the past, intertwined with the thousands of open feedback loops revealing themselves today.
but what has happened to science under capitalism?
since the 1970's especially, the propertied class [...] has been pushing for global systems for intellectual property 'protection'. what does this mean? they want to spread their mind virus to make you think they are your baby daddy. they want you to put them high on the pedestal. to have you think they are unique inventors who have survived their deathly privileged upbringings, not cheaters who stole feedback loops from the commons."
This is very interesting....
A friend and I have been back and forthing in a jocular way with various permutations of pop psychology type quizzes that we all see online or where ever...
example:
what would you rather be...
A) smart
B) lucky
C) wise
D) rich
E) in love
etc etc.
you get the idea. Just goofing.
we did not think to include curious, which, dang, is a good one. But the list gets long after a while.
Also, I have had this discussion with my Dad, who is 93, and he always tells me how smart I am, of course he is my Dad, but I always tell him how wise he is and how much I want him to share his wisdom with me.
I suppose, most likely, the answer has something to do with where you are in life, but me, being 64, and my Dad being 93, I long for his wisdom. But, then I have nephews, in their 20's who wish for the wealth I have.
It's interesting. I wish I had some wisdom, or truth for you. Sorry. Just observations.
I feel that wisdom is a very overlooked trait. Especially in the younger generations it is associated with being "boring", which is a shame. I think not that many people care about being smart, and even less care about being wise.
I am 27 and I often think about how to develop more wisdom for life, but it's difficult to find some good resources for it. A collection of wise quotes doesn't go really far in my opinion. The best thing I have found is just lots of introspection and reading books which have stood the test of time. But I wish there was a more straightforward way.
I think a good combination is being smart but playing dumb. I mean, a person has whatever brain they were born with, and can't turn it on and off. But if they can perceive a situation where smartness is resented or stereotyped, then they can adapt their behavior as needed.
Graph nodes are an excellent framework for thinking about what constitutes intelligence, thanks for sharing.
I really don't like the term "smart" because it is vague, anecdotally it typically means memory, but it can also relate a high level of creativity and problem solving ability as well. All of which I feel are aspects of an intellect.
The main vectors I see for general intelligence as I see it are:
memory/knowledge - here relating the number of nodes held on the graph
curiosity/learning - the rate at which nodes are added to the graph
abstraction/understanding - the ability to distill knowledge, almost like a hash map, but I think an ML model of some subset of nodes is a more accurate (but kinda cheating)approximation.
critical thinking - the window size with which you attempt to traverse the graph
creativity/problem-solving - the ability to formulate rules for a novel traversal of the graph
logic/reasoning - the ability to traverse the graph in an efficient manner and give the right output
astuteness - the ability to recognize nodes that don't belong or are missing on the traversal
self-awareness - indexing the contents of your graph and relating it to all possible nodes, also your understanding of what all possible nodes represents.
Then there are higher level abstractions, wisdom is the confluence of a high level of understanding, critical thinking, reasoning, astuteness and self-awareness. Smarts is some impressive combination of knowledge, critical thinking, problem-solving and reasoning.
Critical thinking and abstraction seem to be related at least in informal systems. There, choosing the scope, or window is highly related to choosing abstractions. You almost always cut off edges (AKA make assumptions) knowingly or not.
The author's writing style rubs me the wrong way. His other post ("Why Obsessively Following Successful People Online is Dangerous") and this one share a weird style in which the author feigns self-deprecation only to follow it with "but I've figured it all out and here are 3-5 bullet points that you should follow!"
Examples:
> A lot of people say to me: “Ivaylo! You are so smart. Your newsletter is full of insights. The books you summarize are so elegantly presented with so much attention and care. Your parents must be proud!” To this, I always respond: “Thanks! I was simply born amazingly gifted.” And then I wake up. I’m kidding, of course. To be honest. I consider myself pretty ordinary in terms of smartness. Actually, the word I’m looking for is average. But there is one quality that helps me fight through my natural stupidity – my unfair advantage sort to say – I’m curious.
> So what’s the problem? It’s this: We spend more time consuming content instead of using the content we consume. And I’m not simply saying this because I think that I’m an omnipotent idol that knows everything. I’m saying this because I feel this way all the time myself. I get lost in the consuming stage – drowning in The Ambitions River – more often than I care to admit.
Whats "better" mean in this instance? Is it, "you will have a better chance of being wealthy?" or is it, "you will lead a happier life?".
For that matter, whats "smart"? Is it to score high on tests, work 8-8 job, and be called smart by everyone else? Or is it make good decisions, work the least amount possible and become super wealthy and retire earlier than everyone else?
Why be smart, if you'll be poor anyway? Would you choose to be less smart but more wealthy? (All rhetorical).
I have friends that range in "smartness" and I find no correlation to wealth outcomes. If anything, friends that are considered - or exhibit "naivety" - actually are more happy.
This is Agnes de Mille conversing with the great dancer Martha Graham:
> “But,” I said, “when I see my work I take for granted what other people value in it. I see only its ineptitude, inorganic flaws, and crudities. I am not pleased or satisfied.”
> “No artist is pleased.”
> “But then there is no satisfaction?”
> “No satisfaction whatever at any time,” she cried out passionately. “There is only a queer divine dissatisfaction, a blessed unrest that keeps us marching and makes us more alive than the others.”
191 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 266 ms ] threadBut not such deep rabbit holes that they would become economic losers!
> I personally know a lot of smart people. Some are really successful in terms of income and wealth. Others aren’t. The difference between the two types? The group of smart folks who fail to make a good living stand still.
Yep; they just don't dive into those money-making curiosity rabbit holes. Like what makes people tick. Specifically in those moments. When they make the important decision to part with their money. And give it to you.
And if I may indulge my own biographical fiction thinking, I think his secret is that nobody believes that he is lying to them. Everybody believes anything he says. Nobody trusts a genius. And there is the paradox, a genius can never convince anybody of anything, but a simpleton can convince everybody of everything (e.g. The Usual Suspects).
The author was not curious enough about this essay's spellcheck squiggles.
I agree with the "humiliating experience" comments below, but how to curate that? One way is put yourself in a challenging environment you (and others) have to confront coming up short consistently.
EG: enter an academic program that isn't up your alley (eg, introverted dev? do an MBA.. You'll learn a lot besides the academics.) Afraid of confrontation? Try to become a manager and watch how you are forced to evolve your backbone. Also, try to get a job at FAANGs or other competitive places. Even failing interviews will teach you - where and why am I failing? Is it tech, communication, composure, etc? Even, try to date beautiful, kind people. Are they going for you - if not, what is it about you that's problematic? etc.
It's a tough way to live in the moment, but it's awesome in retrospect. You evolve and achieve what you would not have - but at any given time you may be more focused on what's holding you back from the next level..
is very hard to read
why?
too many paragraphs
I get it
it wants to read a bit like train of thought
but ultimately
it just makes the message harder to get across
Thinking up wild and vivid scenarios in your mind and playing around with ideas and experimenting with concepts is how I've gotten through most of the traditionally difficult subjects I've encountered so far.
I think I'm a little smart, but not too much higher-than-average. But because I constantly need to think about everything, I'm always exercising my brain, and working on problems that everyone else ignores half their day. I've known plenty of people way smarter than me that didn't achieve as much, because they just wanted to turn off and tune out. Drink some beer. Watch some mindless movies.
I'm going 24x7. So like the multi-billionaire CEO who's only in that position because he works 80hr/wk and never turns it off... I'm doing well in tech (and my hobbies!) because I just can't stop thinking about algorithms and solving problems. My hobbies and entertainment end up being highly-technical intensive thought-requiring activities.
Curiosity is also a trait I've got, but I suspect it's just a result of the high need for cognition. I find that I'm not that curious about things that don't make me think a lot.
tangentially, i have a friend who is a musician that was never "traditionally" smart. i suppose he was just never interested in any of the material, so he never really gave much of an effort. once he found music and discovered that he could orchestrate things on his computer, he fell into a rabbithole that he'll never come out of. learning really is all about engagement, something which sounds so obviously trite but so rarely ever implemented in early american education, at least in my experience.
But if you truly want to "master" something - then does "constantly thinking about problems" mean you will never benefit from the same 'compounding' effect as someone who has spent 3/5/10 years of their time on that problem?
Or - is all your "need for cognition" - mostly in one domain space (e.g. "Computer Science" or "database structure" etc)?
Cognition can be painful in a psyche impacted by a history of high stress. Read about substance P neurotransmitters and depression; chemical messages for physical pain are high in depressed patients, and yet there's nothing to indicate that there should be pain. Block the substance P neurotransmitters and you get an antidepressant.
So, I think there are repressive forces in addition to what you're describing above. Modeling the problem this way, it's easier to be optimistic and figure out societal machinery to promote more problem solving by addressing forces like stress; instead of TV watching and etc., since these habits are side-effects of other problems.
Through meditation, I've come to see that my own habit of thinking 24/7 was actually a means of escape for me. A way of numbing feelings and avoiding silence. In the years since I started to practice meditation my mind has become a lot more quiet and I no longer think about work things obsessively, I can switch off much more easily and conversely it's made me a lot better at knowing what is and isn't important to work on.
I do envy the people who seem to be able to stay on 24/7 without burning out, but part of me also wonders if there's still a limit to that and perhaps my limit is lower.
Instead, I feed off the endless energy they emit and try to make the most use of it. Perhaps some day I can figure out a cool trick to be a constant emitter, just like GGP.
My family shifted my priorities. Getting out of my own head to spend my time with them is more important.
I miss the obsessive all nighters sometimes, but the trade off is worth it.
I believe is what it was called. I worked as close to round the clock as possible for 3 full months once and was pretty sure I was having a heart attack.
Doctor told me that it wasn’t serious as long as I didn’t keep doing whatever I was doing.
Sorry that your were in that situation (working that much). I wonder if it was because you felt you had to, or:
>> I miss the obsessive all nighters
because you wanted to (eg working on one's own startup maybe)
I do not believe this narrative that is only confirmed by billionaires themselves. They mostly rely on the work in others for their success, why working more hours would even have an impact?
Example: An accountant who works 8h/d does very taxing, mental work. They require high concentration and precision, it’s often quite boring stuff, but still, they have to get things right, quickly, constantly.
A manager or director might effectively work more hours, but those hours typically have a much more natural rhythm to them. The vast majority of it is communication or preparing for such. The hard part is making the right decisions, listening learning (broad sense), but it’s not detailed and constant.
We programmers tend to complain when we have too many meetings and purely conceptual/communicative work, because it doesn’t „feel“ like work and getting things done, right? There’s a hint there.
For me, 3-4h of highly concentrated programming and testing is much more taxing than a full day of communication/learning. Much more.
Interesting example with the accountant: constant precision required, although monotonous. Not easy
Your path suits you and you find it satisfying, and I'm happy for you, but it's quite unkind to dismiss other people's choices to drink beer and watch movies instead of working. There are many paths to happiness besides your own.
You can read in a bit of judgment here.
But sure, we can say they achieved just as much (and possibly more) because they achieved contentedness or happiness or whatever, which is great for them, and they are just confused?
My biggest generic life advice for people is "Cultivate curiosity".
The first thing I ask about when people want to know if they should get into programming is how tenacious they are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28748374
mad skills
I always loved this passage from Hitchhikers:
> For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.
Is a smart person who scratches his or her own itches and lives a happy life unproductive if scratching those itches doesn't produce things (accomplishments, wealth, etc.) that are visible to and valued by others?
Like one guy who decided that being a real estate agent was the path to success. He studied for and aced the exam to get a license with ease. He quit after a few weeks of discovering that being a successful agent required focused effort, and went back to living hand to mouth.
His life was a sequence of one scheme like that after another, until he passed away young from neglecting his health.
It still pains me to recount this, he was a good guy.
Success and failure aren't always about money and the kind of accomplishments that society values most.
This is well established in divulgation: I'd say, Daniel Goleman, Focus (2013).
Emotional Intelligence: "It's not the dry smarts of IQ, it's the smarts in understanding others".
Focus: "It's not the smarts, it's the grit".
(...to determine/predict success.)
It's also amazing that in the world we live in currently, you can do very well by just not fucking up. EG: someone born in the 80s could just follow "best practices" their whole life so far and be fine - eg: get good grades, study a valuable major, don't eat garbage, don't marry crazy people/idiots, stay off dangerous drugs, and mainly show up to work, be clean and nice - and you can by now be a very successful 40 year old without really having had to innovate or take huge risks. It's amazing.
In a European country, think Spain, Italy, France, "get good grades, study a valuable major, don't eat garbage, don't marry crazy people/idiots, stay off dangerous drugs, and mainly show up to work, be clean and nice" and you are likely to end up with job paying 40 to 80k (before taxes) a year, which is not bad, but I consider that money far from financially making someone "a very successful 40-year-old".
With my STEM major and a PhD, I would have made between 40 and 50k per year before taxes.
So while I would agree that professional success should be measured on multiple scales, if you were to run a PCA on the multiple dimensions then income should be the largest principle component.
NOTE! I am speaking only of success in your career. However, since this is where most of your energies during your adult life go, it is a dominant factor in your success in other areas.
There might be a weak positive correlation at the population level between (broadly speaking) "being miserable/not having a good time/give up life for money" and "income", but at the individual level what we can say is that there are millions of people in the world making good to very good to great money while having the time of their lives day after day.
I might be one of those, for now. In the future, who knows.
As a person living in a (relatively for the western world) low-cost-of-living area, making a decent income for a low-cost-of-living area, it sometimes feels like a local maximum. It would take a sizeable income jump to offset low cost of housing. No doubt the top world cities are the place to be, in terms of all kinds of fun and opportunities, but lifestyle would be worse there unless or until you'd broken into a really high income bracket.
If a two-bedroom apartment goes for 200k and after taxes what I have is 25k or so, my financial situation, considering kids, car(s), aging parents and what we call life, would certainly not be one of unquestionable success.
"Sailing/horse riding/cars/light aircraft" would certainly be a stretch.
In particular; "Unit 731" was the worst of the worst (even the Nazis were repelled by them). They were granted immunity from prosecution by the Allies and were never held accountable for their unimaginably horrific crimes.
Neither is objectively better- I just wish more people would focus on self-awareness and reflection than comparing themselves to others. All of us have lessons to learn.
"science is a symphony of ongoing fractal rhizomatically-connected feedback loops. something happens and humans go "oh shit, what was that?". then we ask questions and then through making theories and testing them (designing feedback and sub-feedback loops) slowly we understand a new emerging pattern. 1.) the universe responds to something in a new way we hadn't seen before, 2.) we document it, we repeat it to make sure the universe ain't fucking with us, and 3.) that's a completed feedback loop we can pass on: knowledge. we rinse and repeat for more, to infinity, slowly reverse-engineering all the beautiful natural phenomena. this product, our new actionable knowledge, is technology: if i hit these rocks together i get a fire; if i put round tree trunks under some heavy thing i can then roll the thing on top of it very easily ("wow, we can move rocks and make pyramids, here we go!..." "oh fuck, the slavery/misery...") etc., a continuing evolution right into the modern world. billions and trillions of feedback loops. neverending feedback loops. feedback loops racing at us from the past, intertwined with the thousands of open feedback loops revealing themselves today.
but what has happened to science under capitalism?
since the 1970's especially, the propertied class [...] has been pushing for global systems for intellectual property 'protection'. what does this mean? they want to spread their mind virus to make you think they are your baby daddy. they want you to put them high on the pedestal. to have you think they are unique inventors who have survived their deathly privileged upbringings, not cheaters who stole feedback loops from the commons."
source: https://www.reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/comments/pvlc...
Also, I have had this discussion with my Dad, who is 93, and he always tells me how smart I am, of course he is my Dad, but I always tell him how wise he is and how much I want him to share his wisdom with me.
I suppose, most likely, the answer has something to do with where you are in life, but me, being 64, and my Dad being 93, I long for his wisdom. But, then I have nephews, in their 20's who wish for the wealth I have.
It's interesting. I wish I had some wisdom, or truth for you. Sorry. Just observations.
I am 27 and I often think about how to develop more wisdom for life, but it's difficult to find some good resources for it. A collection of wise quotes doesn't go really far in my opinion. The best thing I have found is just lots of introspection and reading books which have stood the test of time. But I wish there was a more straightforward way.
But, so far, this hasn't made anyone think I'm really smart. :/
Framing curiosity and smartness under that model: curiosity is your ability to add nodes, smart is your ability to make connections.
That is, curiosity produces knowledge, and smartness produces wisdom.
I really don't like the term "smart" because it is vague, anecdotally it typically means memory, but it can also relate a high level of creativity and problem solving ability as well. All of which I feel are aspects of an intellect.
The main vectors I see for general intelligence as I see it are:
memory/knowledge - here relating the number of nodes held on the graph
curiosity/learning - the rate at which nodes are added to the graph
abstraction/understanding - the ability to distill knowledge, almost like a hash map, but I think an ML model of some subset of nodes is a more accurate (but kinda cheating)approximation.
critical thinking - the window size with which you attempt to traverse the graph
creativity/problem-solving - the ability to formulate rules for a novel traversal of the graph
logic/reasoning - the ability to traverse the graph in an efficient manner and give the right output
astuteness - the ability to recognize nodes that don't belong or are missing on the traversal
self-awareness - indexing the contents of your graph and relating it to all possible nodes, also your understanding of what all possible nodes represents.
Then there are higher level abstractions, wisdom is the confluence of a high level of understanding, critical thinking, reasoning, astuteness and self-awareness. Smarts is some impressive combination of knowledge, critical thinking, problem-solving and reasoning.
Fun stuff!
Examples:
> A lot of people say to me: “Ivaylo! You are so smart. Your newsletter is full of insights. The books you summarize are so elegantly presented with so much attention and care. Your parents must be proud!” To this, I always respond: “Thanks! I was simply born amazingly gifted.” And then I wake up. I’m kidding, of course. To be honest. I consider myself pretty ordinary in terms of smartness. Actually, the word I’m looking for is average. But there is one quality that helps me fight through my natural stupidity – my unfair advantage sort to say – I’m curious.
> So what’s the problem? It’s this: We spend more time consuming content instead of using the content we consume. And I’m not simply saying this because I think that I’m an omnipotent idol that knows everything. I’m saying this because I feel this way all the time myself. I get lost in the consuming stage – drowning in The Ambitions River – more often than I care to admit.
For that matter, whats "smart"? Is it to score high on tests, work 8-8 job, and be called smart by everyone else? Or is it make good decisions, work the least amount possible and become super wealthy and retire earlier than everyone else?
Why be smart, if you'll be poor anyway? Would you choose to be less smart but more wealthy? (All rhetorical).
I have friends that range in "smartness" and I find no correlation to wealth outcomes. If anything, friends that are considered - or exhibit "naivety" - actually are more happy.
> I personally know a lot of smart people. Some are really successful in terms of income and wealth. Others aren’t.
> The difference between the two types?
It looks like the author is referring to the former.
https://austinkleon.com/2021/10/04/a-blessed-unrest/
This is Agnes de Mille conversing with the great dancer Martha Graham:
> “But,” I said, “when I see my work I take for granted what other people value in it. I see only its ineptitude, inorganic flaws, and crudities. I am not pleased or satisfied.”
> “No artist is pleased.”
> “But then there is no satisfaction?”
> “No satisfaction whatever at any time,” she cried out passionately. “There is only a queer divine dissatisfaction, a blessed unrest that keeps us marching and makes us more alive than the others.”