

That Sounds Smart - rsaarelm
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/soundsmart

======
thunk
> _But the larger consequence is that if you’re smart the world doesn’t seem
> very complicated. This might seem obvious, but the obvious thought is rather
> different. The obvious thought is: The world doesn’t seem complicated to
> smart people. But this isn’t what smart people actually think. They think
> the world isn’t complicated, period._

Woah, woah, woah. "The world" is a very large thing indeed. You'd have to be
pretty stupid to think "it isn't complicated, period." Simplifying insight is
often hard won. And some things are just irreducibly complex. To think
otherwise smells like Dunning-Krueger.

~~~
LaPingvino
Give me an example of an irreducibly complex thing :)

~~~
pwhelan
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community)

Also, I would think that exptime-complete problems we could call irreducibly
complex :)

My first thoughts strayed to computability theory though.

~~~
thunk
Oh yeah, _that's_ why the phrase "irreducibly complex" popped into my mind.
Whoops.

Just to be clear, I definitely _wasn't_ referring to the intelligent design
argument. I meant the phrase strictly in the "make everything as simple as
possible, but no simpler" sense. The simplest possible correct explanation of
some things is still extremely complicated.

------
coffeemug
_But, I suspect, for most people the world is a strange and mysterious place,
governed by principles they do not understand, which affect them severely but
cannot be controlled, only coped with as best as possible._

The world _is_ a strange and mysterious place, governed by principles we do
not understand, which affect us severely but cannot be controlled, only coped
with as best as possible. People that think otherwise might not be as smart as
they consider themselves to be.

I do agree with the overall point. Jargon can be used to simplify
communication by using a language all parties understand, _or_ to mask the
fact that the speaker has no idea what they're talking about. But I take issue
with the argument that everything can be described in a simple way. To quote
Feynman, "If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been
worth the Nobel Prize".

------
fforw
> [Smart people] think the world isn’t complicated, period.

um.. what!?

The world is a complicated mess in just about every aspect except in those
axiomatic systems we developed to create simplified models -- but the map is
not the territory. The world is by far larger than those specialized areas
we're good at.

~~~
pmccool
Sure, but I think that there was an implicit assumption that the person under
consideration was explaining something within their area of expertise.
Otherwise the article would be claiming that a smart person can explain
_anything_ simply, which amounts to equating "smart" with "omniscient".

The other assumption I made about the article was that it was discussing a
useful heuristic, not a 100% reliable test. The inherent complexity of the
world is one of the things that can make it give the wrong result, but not the
only one.

~~~
gloob
Perhaps that is true, but I feel that if the blogger really understood what he
was talking about, he would have been able to phrase it in a way that wouldn't
cause any confusion. ;)

------
donaq
_if you genuinely understand something — really, truly understand it — then it
doesn’t seem complicated and you can explain it rather simply_

Uh, no? Some things are inherently complex. Try explaining how the Y
combinator works (not what it does - why it works) to a layman in simple
terms. I don't think it can be done.

~~~
loup-vaillant
OK, let's try.

I think it can be done in 40 minutes, one hour tops. 15 minutes to explain
what a function is:

    
    
      f1 : ℝ  -> ℝ
      f1 = x |-> a × x + b
    
      f2 : (ℝ × ℝ)  -> ℝ
      f2 = (x,  y) |-> x + y - 1
    
      f3 :  ℝ -> ℝ  -> ℝ
      f3 = (x,  y) |-> x + y - 1
      (I fear curryfication can't be skipped)
    
      f4 : (ℝ -> ℝ) -> ℝ  -> ℝ
      f4 =  f      |-> x |-> f(x)
    
      f5 : ∀ a, ∀ b, (a -> b)  -> a  -> b
      f5 =            f       |-> x |-> f(x)
      (Polymorphic types may be left out, but I think
       they're important)
    

Then 5 minutes to explain what a _recursive_ function is:

    
    
      fac : ℕ  -> ℕ
      fac = 0 |-> 1
            x |-> x × fac(x - 1)
    

Then 5 minutes to present a fix point combinator…

    
    
      fix : ∀ a, (a -> a) -> a
      fix =      f       |-> f (fix f)
      (or we could just say that a is ℕ)
    

…and implement the factorial with it.

    
    
      ffac : (ℕ -> ℕ) -> ℕ  -> ℕ
      ffac = f       |-> 0 |-> 1
             f       |-> x |-> x × (f(x - 1))
      
      fac : ℕ -> ℕ
      fac = fix(fac)
    

We can do a step by step, normal order evaluation. If any question is asked,
just say that evaluating the arguments first just won't work here.

Then, maybe 5 more minutes to explain the concept of self reference without
actually naming oneself:

    
    
      ~PM(~P)
    

Where you assume that for any "printable" string X, PX is true, ~PX is false;
that for any X such that XM(X) is printable, PM(X) is true; and that any
printable string is true, or just don't have the form PX or ~PX. You will note
that ~PM(~P) is true and not printable, because it basically says "I am not
printable". This is an anonymous self reference.

Finally, we can go on and present the Y combinator itself. It does the same
thing as the "fix" combinator, we just have to show that's because there is an
anonymous self reference somewhere. I think it can be done in 10 minutes.

Phew. Done. And I didn't use any knowledge that a high school kid shouldn't
have. Did I miss something?

~~~
bhousel
> Did I miss something?

Just the part about explaining it to a layman in simple terms..

~~~
loup-vaillant
Of course, the raw text above won't suffice. However, you will note that the
notation I used is learned in high school.

To me high school mathematics are quite accessible, though I understand that
most people forget it as soon as they can. So, I just assume I will have to
start from kindergarten arithmetic. And I had, in fact.

I once explained functions to a 14 year old girl. I went as far as high order
functions (function composition, I think), and she understood. I checked, she
could answer my questions correctly. She was bright, but still. I think I was
able to explain functions in rather simple terms.

Now, if I can explain functions to a 14 year old girl, the rest is certainly
doable.

~~~
jamesbritt
"Of course, the raw text above won't suffice."

[http://annieinfinite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/then-
a-m...](http://annieinfinite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/then-a-miracle-
occurs-cartoon.png)

------
j_baker
"Smart people actually say things that are very simple and easy to understand.
And the smarter they are, the more clear what they say is. It’s stupid people
who say things that are hard to understand."

This is just one of those ideas that is good in theory, but simply isn't in
line with reality. A smart person can make things as simple as possible, but
they're not magic. You can't take a complex idea and magically make it simple.

------
Confusion

      People who truly understand their subject should have no
      trouble writing for a popular audience.
    

This is false for at least two reasons.

1) People who truly understand their subject know they can't write for a
popular audience without handwaving, partial truths and actually getting the
complexity of the subject across. They may not _want_ to write in that way.

2) The ability to 'think like a layman', properly estimate their background
and slowly build up a story that they can follow without getting lost is a
skill entirely different from 'knowing your subject'. It is prepostorous to
suppose every intelligent person has that skill. It's a typical case where a
lot of people mistake intelligence for skill and it's insulting to (technical)
writers that have actually put effort into learning how to write.

All in all, I doubt whether 10% of all people that 'truly understand their
subject' can write for a popular audience.

~~~
Estragon
Yes, there are so many fallacies in that essay. It shows another way to
pretend that you're smart: appeal to your audience's vanity by suggesting that
you share a rare resistance to manipulation by intellectual intimidation.

~~~
SiVal
Another fallacy is that smart people are more likely to be found behind
profanity-laced rants. In my experience, people resort to vulgarity as a
gimmick intended to convey a message that isn't adequately conveyed by their
content itself. The emotional, gimmicky nature of it is the reason that it
tends to be negatively correlated with logical quality.

------
lhnz
I think the author is just projecting.

1\. There are plenty of smart people that are bad communicators.

2\. Life is compicated and if you can't see the complexity you probably suffer
from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

------
stcredzero
From article:

 _But the larger consequence is that if you’re smart the world doesn’t seem
very complicated_

This is only for the part of reality designed by humans. Other parts of it are
complicated. Not realizing this is a sign of ignorance.

------
philk
I think he's conflating "smart"[1] and "good at communicating".

[1] In fact "smart" should probably be restricted based on domain. You can be
a brilliant violin player but that doesn't mean you'll be a brilliant
molecular biologist.

~~~
dagw
I think you're conflating "smart" with "brilliant". I know several very smart
people who aren't particularly brilliant at anything, and a couple who are
brilliant at their domain, but really cannot be described as smart.

~~~
philk
If they aren't particularly good at anything, how do you know that they're
smart? They could merely sound smart to you because they seem (for example)
articulate and hold similar opinions.

~~~
dagw
They're very good at many things, just not brilliant at any. They have fairly
deep knowledge in a very wide variety of fields, they can grasp new concepts
easily, they can quickly construct and understand both sound and intelligent
arguments and are generally all round very intelligent people. They've simply
taken a more jack of all trades approach to things, rather than focusing on
becoming brilliant at something.

------
goodside
If you refuse to learn anything that isn't explained in a jargon-free blog
post, the world will seem devoid of anything that can't be.

------
wmwong
This definitely is a bit over-generalized, but I think it makes some good
points. One of the things I admire most about a few of the smartest people I
have met is their ability to explain things in a very simple way. Furthermore,
they are able to break down problems into very simple solutions. I definitely
have troubles with doing this. Many of my solutions are complex. With quite a
lot of effort, I am able to simplify the solution bit by bit, but when I talk
to one of these people, their solutions blow me away. I always walk away
saying to myself, "Why didn't I think of that? It's so simple!". I hope it's
practice, and if I get enough, I'll someday be able to do what they do.

~~~
yewweitan
Depends on the discipline though. Hacking will never be communicated
accurately to non-hackers in the same way that jazz will never sound right to
the non-musician.

I do agree that good communicators manage to somehow frame their thoughts in a
way that encourages other people to think a little further, and realise some
truth that was staring them in the face.

After all, peotry is about making new things familar and familar things new.

It's unfortunate that great communication is largely unscalable (and hence the
reason why YC exists).

------
JustAGeek
This is actually my own test of whether or not I've really grokked something:

If I can't explain it to someone such that she understands it as well, I
haven't really understood that something.

------
theorique
_Smart writing won’t be in formal and difficult-to-understand journal
articles, but in the profanity-laced angry rants you’ll find on someone’s
blog. That’s where the smart people are, even if everybody else just thinks
they’re dumb._

The trouble with this principle is, by Sturgeon's law, you are forced to sift
through the 90+% of profanity-laced angry rants that aren't worth anything to
find the few that are actually worthwhile.

------
miguelpais
The good point I think the article makes before generalizing about smart
people's qualities is the fact that in many cases, such as argument, there are
people who will toss some concepts, jargon or ideas without fully
understanding them and because of that can look to an outsider (maybe your
boss) like they won the argument.

Of course, if the other person in the conversation is really into that
concept, jargon or idea he can quickly point out its flaws. But what is most
likely to happen is for the other guy to have to make some effort to remember
what that concept was and having to put the pieces together. When he can
actually identify what was wrong in the argument, the battle will be long gone
and lost.

Meanwhile the other guy may have made his opinion prevail and gain something
because of it.

------
fgf
Posted by me in his comments section:

"The feeling of understanding can, however, be deceptive. There are lot’s of
high IQ, well read and honest (as in not consciously trying to mislead) people
who disagree about solutions to problems they both feel they understand and
have easily explained (tough often differing) mental models of. The issue of
vouchers in the first comment is a good example. The “brighter” person does
not seem to realize that the greatest benefit of vouchers (according to some,
including me) is that they will give an incentive to innovation. This is
something that cannot be adequately tested for in small controlled
experiments. Your heuristic is great for detecting nonsense but it can’t help
you find truth."

PS. I'm not discussing vouchers today.

------
allend
Honest question: how many people here actually think they are dumber than the
average person?

~~~
Eliezer
I think I'm dumber than a randomly selected sentient being (from the entirety
of space and time).

~~~
donaq
What probability would you assign to that statement being true?

------
pmccool
I agree, mostly. Being smart and being good at explaining aren't the same
thing, though. They may often go together, but it isn't necessarily the case.

~~~
lotharbot
People who are good at explaining are almost always smart, but a lot of smart
people have trouble explaining things.

One common problem is smart people assuming a certain level of background
knowledge, and therefore referencing concepts or using terminology that's not
familiar to their audience. It takes some experience to really figure out what
vocabulary is appropriate for a particular audience.

I've worked with a lot of fourth graders (10-11 years old). I've seen a lot of
people try to explain concepts to them and fail, sometimes because they're
using sixth grade vocabulary the kids can't follow, and sometimes because
they're using first grade vocabulary and overexplaining things and the kids
get bored. It takes practice to explain things at exactly the right level for
the audience -- it takes a teacher who is both smart (having mastery of the
material) and experienced (knowing what level of complexity is audience-
appropriate.)

~~~
chegra
I remember, I used to be penalized in A'levels if I didn't give examples and
analogies when I was explaining a concept. Actually the lecturer never gave
any points for technical explanation. But this sort of learning came in handy
years later when trying to explain the research I'm doing to my boss and
people around me. I just think it is a skill that can be learned.

------
travem
"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and
wrong."

------
ra88it
There are two ways to seem smart:

1) Over-complicate everything.

2) Over-simplify everything.

Aaron's essay describes the former. It, and this comment, are examples of the
latter.

------
Tichy
If somebody convinced my that the world isn't complicated, it would trigger a
couple of warning flags of their own. Most likely, they fooled me.

------
cracki
> Smart writing [...] in the profanity-laced angry rants you’ll find on
> someone’s blog.

I'm thinking of Zed Shaw.

------
rokhayakebe
One thing I have noticed is people who do not seem smart to me are always
quick to remind you of how smarter than other people they are.

------
getonit
You are smart if: you realise that formulating smartness is not smart.

Bugger.

