Is it better to "not be stupid" or "be smart"
 

No, it isn't from one of the AT&T commercials with the kids. Interesting premise.

Sabermetric research: You gain more by not being stupid than you do by being smart. - Slate Magazine

Not surprised. You can get into a lot of trouble by being stupid, and I think you can also get yourself into a lot of (different kind of) trouble by thinking/being too smart.

Smart and Stupid have nothing to do with common sense or work ethic - both of which I think help people more than smarts do, you can be a genius but if you're lazy and have common sense you're in trouble ....

Sounds like the direction the public school I teach at is headed. And let me set something straight I went to public grade school, junior high, high school, and even to a public university and am a big supporter of public education. But damn if every year it doesn't seem like it is more about kids feeling good and teaching to the low and middle and not pushing the intelligent students to their full potential. Maybe I am just getting old and cranky but it sure seems our standards have dropped as a society. (I realize the article is more about games of chance and baseball but still felt the need to comment on this trend I see in public education. And I am at one of the good schools!)

Yeah, probably true.

I've had a couple of thoughts on my own intelligence in the past (using IQ as a basis for this anyway, even if that's not viewed by all as the best indicator), and I've wondered if I would have been better served with a lower one. Not only because I might have been forced to work harder, but I think I might have been a little less averse to risk. I think those who really hit it big do so because they have taken more chances -- I've never been much of a risk-taker at all. I have a good, steady job (knock on wood), but I've not accomplished anything particularly noteworthy nor am I anything near wealthy (this applies to my approach with women as well; if I would have thought a lot less about the possible downside of taking chances, I probably - no, certainly - would have fared a lot better).

I've also wondered if given a chance, I would trade 20-30 points of IQ for a fair upgrade in the looks department. Sadly, I usually lean to yes.

I definitely fall in the "has done less with more opportunities/advantages" category. The bane of my life has been never having a clear direction that I want to go in career-wise.

My neighbor growing up was a couple years older than me and was a fucking genius. Tested off the charts in everything and aced all his classes. But he also had issues with anxiety, motivation, was anti-social at times, etc. Because of that, he struggled a lot as he grew up. He could never really hold down a job and didn't care to have friends and the like. He knew he was basically a genius but couldn't comprehend why he wasn't successful.

He became suicidal and his parents recently took him back in at their house in NJ. He supposedly was getting a bit better. Last week he made his way to San Francisco and jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge. Terrible.

So with my own anecdotal evidence, I can definitely see being "too smart" as a major problem.

Ugh. Awful story.

As someone that lacks it, I feel self-confidence is probably the most important trait when it comes to success.

I dunno. I have worked with a lot of people who are self confident and they suck at their job but are to confident in themselves to realize it or take the necessary criticism to improve.

What?

Yes. Absolutely.

I think you're mistaking confidence for awareness.

not at all. Just because you are confident you can do something doesn't mean you actually can do it. I find people like that also lack the self awareness to realize that.

This has been a problem for me as well.

To me, self-confidence is about knowing what your potential is and that you have the ability to reach it, and being comfortable with that, no matter how high or low you perceive it to be. I think that's different than over-confidence.

I guess it doesn't help that the dictionary basically says it can be both:

self-con·fi·dence [self-kon-fi-duhns, self-]

1. realistic confidence in one's own judgment, ability, power, etc.
2. excessive or inflated confidence in one's own judgment, ability, etc.

I was then going to suggest that perhaps self-esteem was more what I was getting after, but that one is no better:

self-es·teem [self-i-steem, self-]

1. a realistic respect for or favorable impression of oneself; self-respect.
2. an inordinately or exaggeratedly favorable impression of oneself.

Anyways, I was aiming at #1 for both of those more than #2, but I think it's better to have a little #2 than neither if you have to choose.

That's because #2 is just flat out wrong, I'm 100% sure of it.

Now I know how this story ended up on FOFC


SI

Parenting books often warn against praising a child for being smart for these exact reasons.. People have limited control of their intelligence potential, so praising smartness is misguided. Smart kids (like all kids) want to keep getting praised so they will avoid challenging situations where they might not succeed and might not look smart. Lots of smart kids lack drive and focus. Praising kids for hard work and dedication is a better idea since it is something they can control and since work ethic speaks more to productivity than intelligence does.

Better for whom? The person, or society? (I'm guessing you mean the former)

There's not the slightest doubt in my mind that "not stupid" people tend to be happier than "smart" people.

I figure society at large is better served by smart people.

Your problem is that you're missing half of the equation. You need to be cocky /and/ funny!

SI

Now there's an interesting question: Let's say society has people distributed on a bell curve of intelligence from 1 to 10 so the average is 5 and most people fall between 3 and 7. You get 100 "intelligence points" to raise your scores and a person can't now exceed, say, 15 points: what makes for the best society?

Raise everyone 1 point?
Raise the bottom up? (for instance, the 1s get 4 points, the 2s get 3 points, the 3s get 2 points, and the 4s get 1 point so society now goes from 5-10)
Raise the top higher? (give 5 points each to your top 20%)
Something else?

SI

Without getting bogged down in the math, I'd say you probably bump your top group up a little (3-4 points to the top 20%), use the remaining points to raise a few from the group below into that previously highest tier.

This sounds like the opener to a 1930's eugenics course at the University of Berlin. :)

That includes an option to pump up the top 2/3rds of your society and then kill the rest

SI

Wait a minute, I just assumed that wasn't one of my choices. Dammit, now I need to re-do my answer.

Secretly, Jon, you're why it wasn't one of our answers because I wanted you to actually think about it rather than just go with your obvious choice ;)

SI

Great, pick on the honest guy, that's aight.
;)

Can the 1/3rd be raised to say 40%.... If so I'm in :D