
I Was Told I Was Very Smart - mtinkerhess
http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1346357.html
======
hvs
I was always told that I was very smart and, at least when it came to
computers, I was generally better than every one around me. I never had to try
very hard in school to get mediocre grades, and never felt the need to try
harder.

Then I went to a top university in Computer Science. I was suddenly surrounded
by people that were orders of magnitude better at computer science than I was.
I had to study for hours to understand something they seemed to understand
implicitly. It took two years of struggling to finally reach a point where I
considered myself "good" at computer science. After that, it came fairly
easily but I still had to work much harder than my friends who did it
effortlessly.

I learned over time that I am fairly smart. Not off the charts smart, but I've
got my strengths. I still have to work harder than those in the top of my
field, but I'm certainly on the down slope of the bell curve.

But the most important thing that I've learned is that it doesn't matter how
smart you think you are. There will always be those more or less smart than
you. What's important is what you do with it, and how hard you work to achieve
what you want.

~~~
cperciva
_There will always be those more or less smart than you._

Subject to the (entirely reasonable, I believe) presumption that humanity is
finite, a lack of maximal and minimal elements implies that "is smarter than"
is not a strict partial ordering. (All finite partially-ordered sets have
maximal and minimal elements.)

This seems profoundly counterintuitive to me; both the asymmetry and
transitivity of the "is smarter than" relation seem almost axiomatic (and the
irreflexivity is indisputable).

It seems to me that there must be thousands of individuals who are maximally
smart -- each of them, naturally, incomparable to the others.

~~~
andreyf
_both the asymmetry and transitivity of the "is smarter than" relation seem
almost axiomatic_

Hah, you can't be serious! Look around you - asymmetry is so painfully obvious
that even pop theories propose to split intelligence into "book smarts",
"street smarts", "social smarts", etc.

In reality, I don't think "smart" is a word that makes much sense, outside of
the context of signaling social status (pIQ).

~~~
cperciva
_Look around you - asymmetry is so painfully obvious that even pop theories
propose to split intelligence into "book smarts", "street smarts", "social
smarts", etc._

I don't see the connection. Asymmetry in the relation "is smarter than" simply
means that it is impossible to have both "X is smarter than Y" and "Y is
smarter than X" (for X != Y).

In the context of individuals of incomparable intellect, it is inappropriate
to say that either is smarter than the other -- never mind that they are
_both_ smarter than each other.

~~~
andreyf
I think I was considering a looser meaning of "smart", in the common language
sense of "I'm smarter than you regarding dating, you're smarter than me
regrading math". That pop theory removes the intuitive asymmetry by
partitioning "smart" into supposedly asymmetric subrelations - "books smarts",
etc. Each part of this partition is asymmetric.

------
hegemonicon
The most famous study confirming this is the one where they give two groups of
kids relatively easy math problems. The first group they tell "wow, you must
be really smart to complete all those!", the second group they tell "wow, you
must have worked really hard to complete all those!". They then give them
another set of problems far above their skill level. The second group of kids,
the 'hard-workers', work much longer at the problems before giving up on them.
And when both groups are given another set of relatively easy problems, the
first group's performance takes a nosedive.

~~~
btilly
You can find more on that study at <http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/>.

But I have a fundamental disagreement with the simplistic message of
complimenting effort rather than brains. And that disagreement is that you're
training kids to work hard, but not necessarily well. In my childhood the
messages we got pushed us to always look for the trick. As an adult I really
value the mental habit of always looking for the shortcut that makes things
easy.

Another interesting variant I find myself using with my son is to compliment
him for showing smarts, but follow it up with a theory that brains need
practice to continue working. Thus "smart" becomes a compliment for what he
does, and not what he is. For instance I'll say something like, "How did you
get so smart? You must have been really using that brain! Just look at what
you've learned!"

~~~
Bluem00
You might be interested in the book "Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn. It
goes into detail about why praise can be detrimental, and what to substitute
for it. From the description on his site
<[http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm>](http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm>),
it "[draws] from hundreds of studies, [and] demonstrates that people actually
do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other
incentives." The biggest revelation for me was that 'other incentives'
includes both praise and punishment.

~~~
dualogy
"It goes into detail about why praise can be detrimental, and what to
substitute for it."

What, then? ;)

"Rewards and punishments are just two sides of the same coin -- and the coin
doesn't buy very much. What is needed, Kohn explains, is an alternative to
both ways of controlling people. The final chapters offer a practical set of
strategies for parents, teachers, and managers that move beyond the use of
carrots or sticks."

Has anyone read those final chapters and could tell us whether there are any
_actionable_ alternatives in there at all?

~~~
Bluem00
Accelinova provides chapter 10 for free off of their 'bookshelf': <
<http://www.accelinnova.com/pdfs/kohn.pdf> >. This chapter is focused on
motivation in the workplace, and he does have several concrete proposals,
organized into sections: 1. Abolish Incentives - While pay is not a motivator,
it can be a demotivator. "Pay generously and equitably...Then do everything in
your power to put money out of [the employees] minds." 2. Re-evaluate
Evaluation - Do away with the regularly scheduled performance review, and
instead give employees regular, useful feedback, and in particular, the entire
process of giving feedback should be separate from the process that determines
compensation. 3. Create the Conditions for Authentic Motiviation - Attend to
"the collaboration that defines the context of work, the content of the tasks,
and the extent to which people have some choice about what they do and how
they do it." He goes on to give more details about these three conditions in
the second half of the chapter.

The other 2 chapters in this end section are similar, with one each focusing
on raising children and how to structure education.

~~~
dualogy
Thanks!

------
Dove
I think it depends on what conclusion you draw from being smart.

For me, it became obvious very early in elementry school that I was smart. So
my mother told me that my mind was a gift. She also told me that being given
such a gift meant I had a special responsibility to develop it to its fullest
capacity.

Henceforth, it was not failure in any given project that I feared. On the
contrary, I routinely failed and thought that if I didn't, I wasn't taking on
sufficiently difficult challenges. What I feared was not pushing myself hard
enough. Not living up to my potential.

In elementry school, I set my own intellectual pace, and as a professional, I
still do. I sought out challenges and ideas, and still do. I feared
complacency, and still do. Being taught that intelligence equated to
responsibility has done more for me than raw intelligence ever might have.

~~~
wglb
This story illustrates it is all influenced by how your parents and others
around you help you build your expectations and convey their expectations.

I skipped second grade (not recommended) and heard a lot about "potential". I
wouldn't wish that on anybody.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
As a Scout leader I have learned that young people (boys anyway) behave
exactly how you expect them to. If you say "We are the best Troop in the
district!" then they are. By any measure - leadership, deportment,
competition, participation - they do it all if you assume they will, and make
that clear by providing support and opportunity.

------
andreyf
I've never heard a clear definition of "smart" and "stupid" that didn't
involve huge inconsistencies. If anyone has a consistent definition, I'd love
to hear it. Otherwise, I propose we drop the words from the language for being
too vague.

~~~
japherwocky
in dogs, the metric is how many feedback loops it takes to learn a new trick,
iirc. e.g., Fluffy takes 50 treats to learn to "sit" on command; Einstein
takes 25.

~~~
andreyf
Summary: That's not "smart". That's "experienced", which is an integral of
"determined" over time.

Reasoning: Is it intrinsic that Einstein needs 25 tries, or is it because he
also knows "fetch", "lay", "roll over", and "play dead"? It's a very important
distinction, and most usage of "smart" implies the former - intrinsic ability.
That's the difference between "smart" and "experienced".

Among my peers, however, I don't see any intrinsic differences in learning
whatsoever. If person A needs less iteration than person B to learn the
classwork, she's either more determined or has more related experience (or
both). The two go hand-in-hand, because experience is just the integral of
determination over time. Intrinsic "smartness" is completely unnecessary in
describing learning ability.

~~~
nostrademons
I always figured that intelligence was the derivative of knowledge.

I wouldn't be surprised if both determination and related experience correlate
highly with intelligence, but I would be surprised if they explain it
completely. Have you ever taught one of the lower grades (elementary school,
K-5)? There're some students that just "get it", and others that struggle no
matter how many different ways you approach the material. Some of that's
undoubtedly family background - how much value the family places on education,
whether they've been exposed to intellectual concepts early, etc. But I really
doubt _all_ of it is, particularly given differences even between siblings.
And I doubt that determination factors into it much at that age, given the
average willpower of a 6-year-old...

I've also noticed very few intrinsic differences in learning _among my peers_.
But remember that a peer, by definition, is an equal. I can't really place my
peers as being smarter or dumber, but that's because they've all made it
through elite colleges already and been through the Google hiring process. If
I broaden my sample out to "everyone I've known during my lifetime", there're
some really stark differences in learning, and some of the people who
struggled the most were just as determined or moreso than I was, and they
continued to struggle despite approaching the material through several
different angles.

~~~
andreyf
You seem to have more experience than me, but I would hypothesize that
learning fundamental physical metaphors just happens very early (and
haphazardly) in life, and a lot of what seems to be "innate intelligence" is
derived from those experiences. Just as linguistic intuition is hard to attain
after a certain age, there is spacial, logical, and even epistemological
intuition that happens well before the first grade.

Seeing a good magic trick at a young age, for example, is probably what leads
to true understanding of epistemology - you need that initial feeling of
"reality is not what it seems". Intuitively understanding logic is also
indirect - it can come from a toy peaking a child's curiosity at the just the
right time in just the right way.

No learning opportunity is missed completely, just as 30-somethings can learn
to speak foreign languages, but there are certainly windows for the quick
acquisition of certain ideas over others.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Yeah, genetics versus environment, the age-old debate.

Environment certainly plays a role, but to what extent? It isn't just parental
involvement -- there are plenty of bright accomplished people whose parents
were busy doing something else during their upbringing. It isn't likely to be
the toys that you get to play with, because there are bright kids even amongst
the poorest of the poor -- though they do tend to be rarer exceptions.

I'd wager my money on a higher influence from genetics than many people in our
society would currently want to believe. Some people, at birth, are
predisposed to certain natural talents. They simply have good spatial
reasoning, for example -- it's not something that they had to learn to mimic
at a young age, it's something they were actually born with.

From there, the talent is subjected to environmental conditions, some
positive, some adverse. Maybe their spatial reasoning and their parents'
guidance gets them into sports instead of taking things apart. Maybe their
natural talents manage to survive even very adverse environments. Or, maybe
the abilities just wither away and die under conditions that don't nurture
them.

------
JCThoughtscream
I think I was lucky enough to have gone from "wow, you're smart" to "what do
you mean you're struggling to catch up?" relatively early on. Also, joining
the debate team and getting quashed repeatedly the moment I stepped above
Novice rank helped sandblast apart any lingering arrogance I might've had.
/Being/ smart is hard work - discovering that was a little painful, but at
least I /did/ learn that lesson.

------
ztravis
I've come across this line of reasoning before (in reference to the study with
math problems/telling kids they're smart versus hard working) but I'm not sure
if I believe this is particular to being designated as smart. In fact, I would
imagine that telling students that they're not in the 'smart' range, or having
peers designated as smart while they are not, is more damaging to academic
motivation/leads to more fears and emotional distress. I think both are just
manifestations of an underlying fear of being judged, regardless of the
expectations - fears of not living up to high expectations, or confirming low
ones, or in general moving from a comfortable position of uncertainty in one's
skill/intelligence (leaving open the possibility of it being unexpectedly
high) to a better defined and therefore less appealing position.

(you might argue that labeling a child as 'not smart' or at least not singling
out a child as 'smart' might motivate them to prove the evaluation wrong - but
I think those cases are by far the exception rather than the rule)

Now, the label of 'hard working' is on a very different scale from
intelligence; I can understand how calling kids 'smart' rather than 'hard
working' could decrease their performance. Nevertheless, over the course of
our academic lives I think we all get a sense of how we fit in, intelligence-
wise, even if we aren't explicitly labeled, from grades, peer performance,
parent/teacher expectations and evaluations... the smart ones fear being
'found out' as dumb or tarnishing their reputations, the 'dumb' ones fear
(even more, I would imagine) the criticism or negative evaluation of their
work they expect to be forthcoming, the average ones fear being confirmed as
merely average...

------
WilliamLP
The trouble is that really smart kids quickly figure out that they are smart
without being told. (Or, equivalently, that the other kids are just kind of
stupid.)

~~~
ahlatimer
I don't think that's necessarily the case, though. I find myself to be above
average intelligence, and I've been told that throughout my life. However, it
wasn't until somewhat recently (probably in past 3 or 4 years) that I truly
started to accept it. I imagine I accepted it when I was very young, just as I
accepted pretty much everything that was told to me, but there was definitely
a large gap in my development where I didn't find myself to be anything above
average.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
My parents told their 6 farm kids "You are all really smart; you will all go
to college". No financial support, no reading at bedtime, no clubs or
activities other than chores. 4 computer professionals, 1 Environmental
researcher, 1 Clinical Researcher. 3 VPs in Fortune-500 companies (not me)

~~~
run4yourlives
I think your parents were doing a lot more than assigning chores and telling
their offspring that they were smart my friend! :-)

Children learn 24/7, not just at designated "learning times". You had the
benefit of having been blessed with extremely good teachers as parents.

------
unalone
I can't say this is a universal reaction. As a child I was told I was smart,
and subsequently wrote off all my failures with the flippant "I learned
something here, and have become even smarter." Insecurity exists regardless of
intelligence or hype.

~~~
lionhearted
> Insecurity exists regardless of intelligence or hype.

Author is probably referring to the study that kids who are praised on being
"smart" do less well than kids who are praised on being "hard working".

Here's the first google result, looks like it:

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-
secret-...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-
raising-smart-kids)

Jives true to me as well. Most of the people who have identities based on
being smart far underperform their intelligence. I was praised for being smart
growing up, I fight that off like crazy now. "Me? Not smart at all. Just
curious." "Nah, I'm dumb as a box of rocks. I just keep going." And so on.
It's done wonders for me. (Also, realizing just how much I didn't know was
pretty humbling - and the scariest is realizing how much that I'm not even
aware I don't know...)

~~~
thaumaturgy
I am embarrassed to be among the crowd here that will all chime in and say, "I
was told I'm smart too". And I, too, was a thoroughly mediocre student.

But the reason had nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with not
seeing any value in what I was being asked to do. I knew the amount of effort
that would be needed to slide by, and that was all the effort that I put in.

Nor do I shy away now from being "smart". My intelligence is a tool, and I
should use it well, and I am not ashamed -- or afraid -- of it.

~~~
ahlatimer
I'm another one of the fairly mediocre students that's been labeled "smart".
It was much, much worse in middle and high school than it's been in college,
thanks to a stiff kick in the ass by my father, but I still find myself
falling back into that old habit of just sliding by. I still consider myself a
mediocre student because, by my standards, I am doing mediocre. Now, by most
of my contemporaries, I'm doing fairly well in school and life, but I still
can't fight the feeling that I'm selling myself short and not living up to my
ability.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I've noticed that a bit in this thread, and I have at least one other friend
that's struggled with this: the notion that there is some kind of
responsibility associated with some kind of talent.

Well, there isn't.

A person that's naturally beautiful doesn't have a responsibility to become an
actor or an actress or a model. In our society, it's frowned upon if their
parents do things like push them into beauty pageants.

People that are naturally strong or powerfully built don't have a
responsibility to take a manual labor job, and nobody tells them that they
aren't "living up to their ability" if they don't take a job in construction.

Now, there's a caveat: there are certain problems in human society which smart
people are better suited to solving. That doesn't mean they _will_ solve them
-- most of the problems require multiple talents, and intelligence is just one
-- but they do have some edge.

But that's not your responsibility, or mine, or anyone else's. You should
decide what's important to you and then do that.

There's nothing wrong with spending your life having fun.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I can't speak for the parent but I know that I'm not using my brain to it's
fullest - it's not that I feel because I'm intelligent that society expects me
to use that intelligence I don't feel I owe anything because of that blessing.
It's simply that I'd like to use my intelligence to better effect, to
positively influence society, to leave a legacy somehow of benificence, etc.,
that's probably more arrogance than anything else though. It does lead me on
to thoughts of being an academic teacher in the more formal sense of the word
(I consider many aspects of what I do to be teaching roles).

~~~
ahlatimer
I believe that's the same for me as well. I don't feel that I'm selling
society, my parents, my peers, etc. short by not living up to my potential.
I'm simply selling myself short, and I feel guilty for wasting away something
that not many people have.

Then again, I do spend a lot of my time learning and improving myself, and I'm
not sure I need a 4.0 to back up some claim to knowledge. The most intelligent
person I've ever met was a horrible student. He spent most of his hours
studying, but he never really studied the things that his classes were
teaching. You could certainly pin that on a lack of _judgment_ , but I don't
know anyone that would say he lacked intelligence.

~~~
thaumaturgy
> ... _and I feel guilty for wasting away something that not many people
> have._

But I think that statement right there puts the lie to saying that you're
doing it for yourself, and not for society. That may well be your _intention_
, but is it possible that you're still driven at least in part by the
expectations of others? If not, then why does it matter that you have it, and
they don't?

BTW, I don't mean to discourage people that are doing something with what they
have. Quite the contrary, I really wish more people would, whether they're
creative or analytical or otherwise. However, I also think that the
expectations placed upon kids of certain aptitudes by their parents, teachers,
and others at a young age are perverse and cruel.

People should feel driven to accomplish great things because they _want_ to,
not because others expect it, or because they feel guilty if they don't.

~~~
ahlatimer
Assuming intelligence actually is a gift, it's a gift that is, at best, an
amusing anecdote if not taken advantage of. If I don't use it, the world isn't
really a worse place, but I am definitely a worse person in comparison to who
I could have been if I had taken advantage of it. That isn't in relation to
some other person's expectations of me; that's in relation to my own
expectations. Sure, those could have been ingrained into me at a young age.
There's probably a number of things that I consider to be my own, as far as
perceptions, that sprang forth from my youth and my interactions with others.
But that doesn't mean that I have this drive to do more with my intelligence
because of what society dictates.

------
gbookman
I think it's interesting how praise, in this case being told you're smart, can
lead to insecurity.

I guess that by being told you're smart, it builds up high expectations within
your own mind, leading to emotional distress when you fail to meet those
expectations.

~~~
andreyf
It's not that counter-intuitive, it's just a vague definition of "insecurity".
When you praise someone for X, you show them that your admiration depends on
your perception of X in them, they try to keep your perception of X alive, but
avoiding things that would disprove X.

Instead of "admiration", let's say I give you $100 a day as long as you're
"smart". Now, do you want to risk my perception by trying something new, or
keep doing whatever you're good at?

It's still utility maximization, through and through.

------
3pt14159
I was told I was smart and I worked hard. Country living left no room for
insecurities about losing what was _special_ about my identity. When I didn't
do the math homework it wasn't because I didn't want to be discovered as a
simpler person than other told me I was, it was because I was busy hacking
away at some silly QBASIC code. Even playing Civilization or making minor
explosives, I learned more there than a year long of "Egyptian History" in
grade 6. Teach your kids to be independent, smart, kind, and get 'em to do at
least 10 hours of chores a week and they'll be fine.

~~~
sfnhltb
I would especially recommend the chores thing - maybe this is relating to
watching something on BBC3 where they dumped a load of 18-25 year olds still
living at home into a house and essentially simulated them having to live on
their own, manage their own budgets, cook their own food, do their own
shopping, do worklike tasks during the day, etc. They obviously completely
failed in every way imaginable.

It is very easy with all the labour saving devices we now have for parents to
just do pretty much all the chores, rather than expend the possibly greater
effort of browbeating the kids into do them regularly. The other part is to
mix it up - they all need in the end to be able to iron, wash clothes, put out
trash, help with shopping, etc., so ensure they all do some of each rather
than one "easy" chore they like every day/week (some are age dependant of
course, but you have a decade or so to cover everything so that shouldn't be
an issue)

------
mronge
If you're interested in this, check out the book Mindset by Carol Dweck. I
recommend it, it's amazing how hackable your mind is.

[http://www.amazon.com/Mindset-Psychology-Success-Carol-
Dweck...](http://www.amazon.com/Mindset-Psychology-Success-Carol-
Dweck/dp/0345472322/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256185179&sr=8-1)

------
hrabago
I think a lot of people would like to think of themselves as smart. I do, too.
I'm smart, you're smart, and he's smart as well, but it's all relative.

Instead of thinking about how smart I am, I instead think about how much I
don't know, especially about things I need to know, either for my professional
life or for my personal life. This list can quickly grow, especially since the
more you know, the more you become aware of the things you don't know. This is
a more concrete measuring stick. Yeah we're both smart, but you know things I
need to know to get through my day, so at least today, you're better off than
I am. But hey, I'm so smart, maybe I'll figure it out.

------
simplegeek
I'm not sure why this guy keeps getting rejections because I think he _can_
write.

~~~
jordan_stewart
Right on man, he can definitely write! Perhaps he just doesn't write about the
right thing?

------
jorleif
I wish someone did a study on how being told other things affect intelligence.
For example, there is the stereotype of the dumb blonde. Perhaps being told
(or knowing) that one is attractive leads to lower effort and therefore to
less knowledge and lower intelligence. Maybe high intelligence is something
geeks develop, only because they are not very good at anything else, such as
being popular or good at sports etc.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Mensa (top 2% on intelligence test) have a demographic of high-ability non-
achievers. Bookstore employees, lab assistants etc. Rarely the boss.

~~~
echair
Surely it's Mensa membership that correlates with low achievement, not scoring
well on IQ tests per se.

------
albertsun
I don't buy the connection between being told you're smart and having a fear
of failure. Just because many people have been told they're smart and many
people fear failure doesn't mean that there's any relationship between the
two.

And I also don't think the second one is necessarily a new phenomenon.

~~~
sophacles
It's not a random correlation based on observations of adults, it's studies
that show small children behave in the mentioned ways when told they are
smart, when compared to being told they are hard working. A lifetime of this
can ingrain certain behaviors.

------
coliveira
The problem with being smart is that you're never smart enough. In school I
was considered very smart, and that was great. In grad school, I was smart,
but not the most, and this makes you hurt inside. Then you start to learn that
is effort that really matter.

------
gamble
Conversely, it's usually to your advantage to be _perceived_ as smart, rather
than just hard-working. Everyone believes they could work hard, if they wanted
to. The people who impress us are the ones who make it seem effortless.

------
chanux
And to add to this, it's not just being told "it's Believing that you are
smart", (which can happen without any one else involved) is the formula of
destruction.

It's already said in a better way.

"When you’re ripe you rot, when you’re green you grow"

------
rythie
Basically, if your smart, you risk under achieving because compared to your
perceived peers, your doing well and don't try any harder. However, compared
to other people who are similarly smart your under achieving.

------
whyleyc
His conclusion - throw yourself into your life and your work whilst you are
still young enough to be able to, so that you don't regret it when you are
older.

------
teeja
"Far better to tell a kid that they're hard working."

Sorry. Working smart beats working hard. EOM

------
FreeRadical
Why not self publish?

------
nice1
There is something to this, but it is also quite misleading. It is (sometimes
painfully) obvious that there is a huge variation in innate ability. There are
extremely talented people, there are those who find just about everything
difficult, and all the shades in between. You can see this even with quite
small children. Success is very often correlated with hard work, but in no way
does that imply that some people aren't much smarter than others.

~~~
drewcamealong
The article doesn't imply that hard work trumps smartness at all, and it
doesn't imply or state that there is little innate variation in ability. What
it says is that if you tell a very smart or talented person how smart they are
when they're younger, they're more likely to be afraid to take risks that
would jeopardize that label. It's better to emphasize to them that they work
hard, according to the author (and, I believe, studies that back him up).

------
davidw
My reaction to this kind of article is along the lines of "yeah, ok, sounds
right, let's move on to something more interesting".

