Smarty Pants
February 9, 2007 1:38 PM Subscribe
Who is / was the smartest person you have ever known, and what made them so smart in your eyes. Was it their knack for mechanics, their perceptiveness, their ability to create art, the way they lived their life? I suppose this is a very subjective question, but it seems people gauge 'smart' in a lot of different ways, and I am curious about all the different gauges, and how high the measurement can go.
This post was deleted for the following reason: chatfilter
languagehat.
Except for the whole anarchism thing—seriously? Seriously? Since the Somalia of today is the closest system to anarchy in existence, he would prefer that to New Hampshire? (Going on the reasonable assumption that a modern democrat in the 19th century should prefer the US to any other extant system, despite the lack of female suffrage, the existence of slavery and then the Jim Crow laws, and so on.
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 1:47 PM on February 9, 2007
Except for the whole anarchism thing—seriously? Seriously? Since the Somalia of today is the closest system to anarchy in existence, he would prefer that to New Hampshire? (Going on the reasonable assumption that a modern democrat in the 19th century should prefer the US to any other extant system, despite the lack of female suffrage, the existence of slavery and then the Jim Crow laws, and so on.
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 1:47 PM on February 9, 2007
I consider the 'smartest people' to be those who use language to articulate complex and varied ideas in easily understandable ways... Marshall McLuhan, Noam Chomsky, George Plimpton, Bill Hicks, Terence McKenna come to mind although I'm embarassed that I can't think of any others right now.
posted by sswiller at 1:48 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by sswiller at 1:48 PM on February 9, 2007
Oh, and why; because he has consistently good judgement, on everything I know anything about with one exception, and on those things I haven’t known anything about, his judgement has proved to be considered and as good as is possible as I’ve learned more about them.
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 1:50 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 1:50 PM on February 9, 2007
My father is one of them, and no, this isn't childlike awe and wonder, because he's also an irresponsible ass.
He didn't get a formal degree until later in life but he's been a nuclear safety technician, a nuclear engineer (trained in the navy), travel agent, electronics repair person for Texas Instruments (self taught with kits he bought online), a custom database builder/salesman (self-taught from books he bought second hand at used book stores) and has every Microsoft Networking and programing certification offered (also self-taught). He's started, but never finished, a sci-fi novel that actually reads fairly well, helped on archaeological digs, been on the crew of the new Captain Kangaroo show, and a handful of other jobs and adventures. He reads about 3-5 books a week, all genres and is reputedly good at chess.
He is also hiding from creditors because he doesn't know how to manage his finances.
Another one is my friend Jon, who never completed college but was recruited into a software company (now owned by MS) after winning some programming competition at Epcot Center.
I don't judge intelligence on knowledge per se, but on problem solving abilities (except for finances apparently) and the ease in which new skills/information is acquired and understood.
posted by JeremiahBritt at 1:52 PM on February 9, 2007
He didn't get a formal degree until later in life but he's been a nuclear safety technician, a nuclear engineer (trained in the navy), travel agent, electronics repair person for Texas Instruments (self taught with kits he bought online), a custom database builder/salesman (self-taught from books he bought second hand at used book stores) and has every Microsoft Networking and programing certification offered (also self-taught). He's started, but never finished, a sci-fi novel that actually reads fairly well, helped on archaeological digs, been on the crew of the new Captain Kangaroo show, and a handful of other jobs and adventures. He reads about 3-5 books a week, all genres and is reputedly good at chess.
He is also hiding from creditors because he doesn't know how to manage his finances.
Another one is my friend Jon, who never completed college but was recruited into a software company (now owned by MS) after winning some programming competition at Epcot Center.
I don't judge intelligence on knowledge per se, but on problem solving abilities (except for finances apparently) and the ease in which new skills/information is acquired and understood.
posted by JeremiahBritt at 1:52 PM on February 9, 2007
I consider the 'smartest people' to be those who use language to articulate complex and varied ideas in easily understandable ways... […] Noam Chomsky,
Good old Noam:
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 1:54 PM on February 9, 2007
Good old Noam:
It's also unnecessary to point out to the half a dozen or so sane people who remain that in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.To be clear; that’s something that, if it’s not to be interpreted as something clearly ridiculous, is the furthest thing I know from ‘easily understandable.’
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 1:54 PM on February 9, 2007
Personally or in general? I have encountered all sorts of people who are incredibly intelligent but have a complete inability to convey complex ideas without resorting to jargon or mathematical models. Without getting too philosophical, if you cannot convey your ideas to at least your intellectual peers how intelligent you are is somewhat worthless.
For example Nassim Taleb has a knack for explaining complex systems in a philosophical and intellectual manner without resorting to excessive, advanced matters. As I overheard once, you can make all those greek letters say whatever you want.
I am fairly confident you can sit any reasonably intelligent person in a room for several years and teach them nothing but abstract mathematics/physics or whatever topic you deem hard to understand and they will be able to work within that domain with incredibly proficiency. True genius and true intellect is able to understand the system not just within the confines of its jargon but on a more holistic level and thus able to see if there are any underlying assumptions that are crucial to understanding the model.
I hate to focus on complex modeling but it seems that those with very high intelligence frequently gravitate to such a path. The most intelligent people among this subset of very intelligent people seem to admit (1) that the more they learn, the less they know about anything and (2) are able to converse with relative outsiders and give a complete picture of what they are talking about.
A quick example, I was reading Bachelier's thesis on modern finance in which he more or less derives Einstein's equation for Brownian motion (in a rather sloppy manner). While truly a very smart person (indeed deriving it quite sometime before Einstein did), his inability to convey the importance meant the paper was largely buried for half a century.
I will admit that it is somewhat of a selection bias that I assume Einstein was smarter by the simple fact we came to learn of it from him, but intelligence is multi-faceted and being able to communicate the fruits of your intelligence is a very important part of this.
posted by geoff. at 2:00 PM on February 9, 2007
For example Nassim Taleb has a knack for explaining complex systems in a philosophical and intellectual manner without resorting to excessive, advanced matters. As I overheard once, you can make all those greek letters say whatever you want.
I am fairly confident you can sit any reasonably intelligent person in a room for several years and teach them nothing but abstract mathematics/physics or whatever topic you deem hard to understand and they will be able to work within that domain with incredibly proficiency. True genius and true intellect is able to understand the system not just within the confines of its jargon but on a more holistic level and thus able to see if there are any underlying assumptions that are crucial to understanding the model.
I hate to focus on complex modeling but it seems that those with very high intelligence frequently gravitate to such a path. The most intelligent people among this subset of very intelligent people seem to admit (1) that the more they learn, the less they know about anything and (2) are able to converse with relative outsiders and give a complete picture of what they are talking about.
A quick example, I was reading Bachelier's thesis on modern finance in which he more or less derives Einstein's equation for Brownian motion (in a rather sloppy manner). While truly a very smart person (indeed deriving it quite sometime before Einstein did), his inability to convey the importance meant the paper was largely buried for half a century.
I will admit that it is somewhat of a selection bias that I assume Einstein was smarter by the simple fact we came to learn of it from him, but intelligence is multi-faceted and being able to communicate the fruits of your intelligence is a very important part of this.
posted by geoff. at 2:00 PM on February 9, 2007
On the phone while I wrote that, among other typos it should read "excessive use of advanced mathematical models" ...
posted by geoff. at 2:07 PM on February 9, 2007
posted by geoff. at 2:07 PM on February 9, 2007
I have to second/third others when I say that the my definition of "smart person" is one that can take complicated concepts and explain them at whatever level his/her audience thinks. Explaining how the Doppler effect is proof of an expanding universe to a 4th grader, for instance.
Using that definition, I've been blessed by many intelligent people in my life. The first person I "knew" (of) that exhibited this intelligence was Richard Feynman.
posted by parilous at 2:08 PM on February 9, 2007
Using that definition, I've been blessed by many intelligent people in my life. The first person I "knew" (of) that exhibited this intelligence was Richard Feynman.
posted by parilous at 2:08 PM on February 9, 2007
this question's a rorschach. i think most people are impressed by skills they wish they had; to an aspiring comedian, stephen colbert's lighting wit marks him as a genius. folks are also likely to be impressed by people who have skills they completely don't understand: so to a technophobe, a programmer will seem smart. our answers to this Q will be clear indicators of what qualities we each wish we had more of.
in my case, my current and ex boyfriend win my vote, because they're excellent judges of character with impeccable people skills.
they've both laughed in my face when i called them smart, commenting that i'm much smarter than them because i read more and have memorized reams of useless facts. but for me, reading and remembering is unimpressive because it's easy- whereas my boys' effortless social graces wow me every time. to find a fact, i just turn to google. to figure out how to deal with an uncomfortable social situation or interpersonal conflict, under pressure? i turn to them- that's genius.
posted by twistofrhyme at 2:08 PM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
in my case, my current and ex boyfriend win my vote, because they're excellent judges of character with impeccable people skills.
they've both laughed in my face when i called them smart, commenting that i'm much smarter than them because i read more and have memorized reams of useless facts. but for me, reading and remembering is unimpressive because it's easy- whereas my boys' effortless social graces wow me every time. to find a fact, i just turn to google. to figure out how to deal with an uncomfortable social situation or interpersonal conflict, under pressure? i turn to them- that's genius.
posted by twistofrhyme at 2:08 PM on February 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
Good Old Noam...furthest thing I know from ‘easily understandable.’
I think if you deconstruct the semantics, Chomsky's arguments are easily understandable and irrefutable.
posted by sswiller at 2:11 PM on February 9, 2007
I think if you deconstruct the semantics, Chomsky's arguments are easily understandable and irrefutable.
posted by sswiller at 2:11 PM on February 9, 2007
are able to converse with relative outsiders and give a complete picture of what they are talking about.
that seems like a strange criteria for measuring intelligence. specialists should evaluate other specialists; otherwise, how can you really know they know what they're talking about?
posted by footnote at 2:13 PM on February 9, 2007
that seems like a strange criteria for measuring intelligence. specialists should evaluate other specialists; otherwise, how can you really know they know what they're talking about?
posted by footnote at 2:13 PM on February 9, 2007
they're excellent judges of character with impeccable people skills.
wait, how does that equal "smart"? I might really admire someone like that, and prefer to trade a few IQ points for their people skills, but it doesn't seem to be "smart" by any normal sense of the word.
posted by footnote at 2:16 PM on February 9, 2007
wait, how does that equal "smart"? I might really admire someone like that, and prefer to trade a few IQ points for their people skills, but it doesn't seem to be "smart" by any normal sense of the word.
posted by footnote at 2:16 PM on February 9, 2007
David Liu is the smartest person I've ever met. We lived in the same freshman dorm in college. We shared fascinations with chemistry, biology, mathematics, computers, and complex systems, but David seemed to have an intuitive understanding of things that took me years of difficult study to grasp. He also had a devoted work ethic and he was a pleasant, funny guy.
He's a full professor of chemistry at Harvard now - at the age of 33 - and it appears that the entire world shares my opinion of him.
posted by ikkyu2 at 2:21 PM on February 9, 2007
He's a full professor of chemistry at Harvard now - at the age of 33 - and it appears that the entire world shares my opinion of him.
posted by ikkyu2 at 2:21 PM on February 9, 2007
The smartest person I know is a professor in my department; I qualify him as such because when I explain the current stumbling blocks in my research to him, he immediately asks pertinent, probing, and well-thought-out questions about the subject, which quite often lead to me getting past the stumblong blocks.
Ninety percent of being smart is knowing what questions to ask.
posted by Johnny Assay at 2:22 PM on February 9, 2007
Ninety percent of being smart is knowing what questions to ask.
posted by Johnny Assay at 2:22 PM on February 9, 2007
response to footnote:
i guess to me "smart" means "good at solving problems", and the kind of problems i find hardest to solve are interpersonal ones.
posted by twistofrhyme at 2:29 PM on February 9, 2007
i guess to me "smart" means "good at solving problems", and the kind of problems i find hardest to solve are interpersonal ones.
posted by twistofrhyme at 2:29 PM on February 9, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:40 PM on February 9, 2007