How to Deal with Dumb People

[MachineGhost]

Why are smart people so dumb?

The question has haunted savants, wives and bartenders throughout the ages. But at least we have a hypothesis.

A guy gets a Ph.D. in physics. You ask him a simple question. He comes up with one of the dumbest answers you ever heard.

Another guy becomes a world chess champion. The next thing you know he's promoting a cause you know is moronic.

And what about Warren Buffett? He must be smart. He's made a lot of money.

The French admire intellectuals. The English admire people who can hold their tongues. The Australians admire people who can hold their liquor. Americans admire people who make money.

http://www.insideinvestingdaily.com/art ... nkers.html

[dragoncar]

Haha, yeah!  Smart people are dumb!  When people don't agree with me, they are dumb.  Unless they are smarter than me, in which case they are still dumb.  Yeah!  High five!

[Pointedstick]

We're all ignorant about most things. One shouldn't assume that an expert in one field has broad competence in another. I think that's what that article is saying, albeit in an inflammatory and sensationalist manner.

[dragoncar]

We're all ignorant about most things. One shouldn't assume that an expert in one field has broad competence in another. I think that's what that article is saying, albeit in an inflammatory and sensationalist manner.

I think the article is trying to say that smart and/or successful people become overconfident.  But it was pretty hard to follow.  Because, you know, the Australians admire people who can hold their liquor.

[Xan]

I think this is the main reason why the Founding Fathers are rightly revered: not only were they brilliant men, but they recognized the limits of brilliance, including their own.  That is a rare thing indeed in the course of history.

[edsanville]

We're all ignorant about most things. One shouldn't assume that an expert in one field has broad competence in another. I think that's what that article is saying, albeit in an inflammatory and sensationalist manner.

I think the article is trying to say that smart and/or successful people become overconfident.  But it was pretty hard to follow.  Because, you know, the Australians admire people who can hold their liquor.

The article seems to summarize its own point here:

"He thinks he can figure things out... and use his brain to create the kind of world he wants.

Why can't he? Because no matter how smart you are... the world is far more complex and far more nuanced than you will ever understand."

I think this is a great point, actually.  It's not that the smart people are dumb, it's that some of them are trying to solve impossible problems, like predicting the future.  And worse...  trying to control the future.

[dragoncar]

"He thinks he can figure things out... and use his brain to create the kind of world he wants.

Why can't he? Because no matter how smart you are... the world is far more complex and far more nuanced than you will ever understand."

I think this is a great point, actually.  It's not that the smart people are dumb, it's that some of them are trying to solve impossible problems, like predicting the future.  And worse...  trying to control the future.

What's the alternative?  The hypocrisy of a financial planner arguing the folly of listening to "smart people" to plan the future is astonishing.

[Benko]

If you have an advanced degree from Hahvard, yale, etc, could not profitably manage a 7-11 but are sure you know how to manage the country (not talking particularly about O here).....

There is a reason for this quote:

William F. Buckley Jr. - "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the
Manhattan phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard."

[edsanville]

"He thinks he can figure things out... and use his brain to create the kind of world he wants.

Why can't he? Because no matter how smart you are... the world is far more complex and far more nuanced than you will ever understand."

I think this is a great point, actually.  It's not that the smart people are dumb, it's that some of them are trying to solve impossible problems, like predicting the future.  And worse...  trying to control the future.

What's the alternative?  The hypocrisy of a financial planner arguing the folly of listening to "smart people" to plan the future is astonishing.

Good point, but the difference between this guy and the "smart people" in government is that the government prognosticators and planners have the legal ability to shove their beautiful plans down everyone's throat.  We can just ignore what this guy says, if we want.

[systemskeptic]

It takes approximately 10,000 hours to become an expert in a given field.  At a minimum, 1000 hours to get to a level most would consider acceptably knowledgeable.  100 hours might establish a baseline proficiency.   

Most people are dumb because there aren't enough hours in a human lifetime, and some people think they can just walk into a conversation on a new subject and instantly become an expert.

[MediumTex]

It's endlessly tempting to try to take your own mental model of the world and try to impose it on the world as it actually is.

In some cases, this practice works out really well, because in many situations the ability of a person to provide a coherent narrative about what is actually happening is appealing to others and such a practice has a way of creating the reality that is first observed in one's mind.

In other cases, there is a stubborn reality beyond the models in one's mind that just won't bend no matter how much anyone may want it to.

Distinguishing between these two aspects of reality--that which is bendable and that which is not--is really the challenge.

I think that expertise can enhance one's ability to bend reality, but only to a point, and only within that field of expertise.

In Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff, he talks about how the early astronauts had a tendency to think that expertise as a pilot translated into expertise with women, drinking and driving fast, which led to many humorous expressions of hubris.

[Storm]

It takes approximately 10,000 hours to become an expert in a given field.  At a minimum, 1000 hours to get to a level most would consider acceptably knowledgeable.  100 hours might establish a baseline proficiency.   

Most people are dumb because there aren't enough hours in a human lifetime, and some people think they can just walk into a conversation on a new subject and instantly become an expert.

I agree, it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in a given field, however, if you're willing to put 8 hours a day into something, that's only 3.42 years.  It's not that long, honestly.

I do agree with the premise of this article - having that 10,000 hours of expertise in one subject somehow makes people overconfident on other subjects.  I'm guilty of this myself.

[systemskeptic]

I agree, it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in a given field, however, if you're willing to put 8 hours a day into something, that's only 3.42 years.  It's not that long, honestly.

I do agree with the premise of this article - having that 10,000 hours of expertise in one subject somehow makes people overconfident on other subjects.  I'm guilty of this myself.

Very true that anyone can become an expert in a given field, in fact most are experts in something if they have been working at a job for 5 years and actually work 8 hours a day. 

When it comes down to it, being truly smart means understanding both the strengths and weaknesses of your knowledge, and being able to switch between educator (in subjects you are an expert) and listener (in subjects you are deficient). 

While it is relatively easy to become an expert in a single field (~4 years) it is very difficult to become an expert in even a handful (~20-25 years).

[murphy_p_t]

I'm highly skeptical of this notion of spending lots of time on something makes you an authority/expert.

Two examples, which shatter this thesis: Ben Shalom Bernanke, Paul Krugman

You can be "expert" and still have all the wrong answers. I thikn it a huge mistake to treat people like this as some kind of high priest because theyv'e hung around the academy their whole life.

my $0.02

[Storm]

Two examples, which shatter this thesis: Ben Shalom Bernanke, Paul Krugman

Yet, arguably, they are both leading experts in their field:

1. Example - Ben Bernanke's controversial QE programs have prevented what could have been a deadly depression and instead turned it into a relatively soft extended recession.  His extensive study of the great depression seemed to inform his decisions, at a time when printing money (QE) was not popular at all.  Personally, I thought QE would be a disaster, but perhaps it has prevented us from extreme depression and widespread famine and suffering in America.

2. Example - Paul Krugman has been advocating much more stimulus.  He is completely correct.  Congress intentionally avoided solving any problems through policy, which likely would have turned our currently slow recovery into a booming surplus of economic growth.  He has been thoroughly correct on many occasions, predicting the housing bubble and credit crisis.  His calls for more economic stimulus have been ignored and men like Bernanke have had to try to enact other measures to try and stimulate us out of recession.  All of these are much less effective than simple policy solutions like increased stimulus.

[murphy_p_t]

Two examples, which shatter this thesis: Ben Shalom Bernanke, Paul Krugman

Yet, arguably, they are both leading experts in their field:

1. Example - Ben Bernanke's controversial QE programs have prevented what could have been a deadly depression and instead turned it into a relatively soft extended recession.  His extensive study of the great depression seemed to inform his decisions, at a time when printing money (QE) was not popular at all.  Personally, I thought QE would be a disaster, but perhaps it has prevented us from extreme depression and widespread famine and suffering in America.

Your premise is pure speculation. We took the road Bernanke chose...we'll never know the outcome if another path was chosen. Furthermore, consider that if the Bernank could do as you claim, why is he so cruel not to create a roaring economy, rather than just having us avoid a depression? Furthermore, the claim that we have avoided a depression is suspect. I just read that in IL 1/3 of the people are living in poverty. That sounds like depression 2me.

[murphy_p_t]

this article was linked on drudgereport

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/20601 ... vel-report

[systemskeptic]

I'm highly skeptical of this notion of spending lots of time on something makes you an authority/expert.

The theory is not that after 10,000 hours everyone will be an expert, but rather that to become an expert, you need a minimum of 10,000 hours invested [on average].

With respect to Krugman, etc. remember that expert is a relative term, it does not say anything about the truth of one's beliefs. You can study 10,000 hours on a subject yet later be shown to have been completely incorrect as a result of some erroneous assumptions that you may have made.

[Libertarian666]

Two examples, which shatter this thesis: Ben Shalom Bernanke, Paul Krugman

Yet, arguably, they are both leading experts in their field:

1. Example - Ben Bernanke's controversial QE programs have prevented what could have been a deadly depression and instead turned it into a relatively soft extended recession.  His extensive study of the great depression seemed to inform his decisions, at a time when printing money (QE) was not popular at all.  Personally, I thought QE would be a disaster, but perhaps it has prevented us from extreme depression and widespread famine and suffering in America.

2. Example - Paul Krugman has been advocating much more stimulus.  He is completely correct.  Congress intentionally avoided solving any problems through policy, which likely would have turned our currently slow recovery into a booming surplus of economic growth.  He has been thoroughly correct on many occasions, predicting the housing bubble and credit crisis.  His calls for more economic stimulus have been ignored and men like Bernanke have had to try to enact other measures to try and stimulate us out of recession.  All of these are much less effective than simple policy solutions like increased stimulus.

Both of these claims are totally and completely incorrect, as anyone familiar with Austrian economics would know. Money printing cannot "stimulate" the economy other than by fooling people into thinking they are richer than they actually are, so they consume more than they would if they realized how much money they actually have.

There are only two remaining questions at this point:
1. Which of the two possible endpoints of inflation the policymakers will run into: the "crack-up boom" or the outright visible depression.
2. The timing of the end.

[Pointedstick]

Both of these claims are totally and completely incorrect, as anyone familiar with Austrian economics would know. Money printing cannot "stimulate" the economy other than by fooling people into thinking they are richer than they actually are, so they consume more than they would if they realized how much money they actually have.

This would be correct in a world with a money supply that is basically static, or at least very inelastic. If our money supply consists of n dollars, and the Fed is directed by congress to print n/5 dollars, then we have 1.2n dollars chasing the same quantity of goods and we get some inflation.

But what if we have a very elastic money supply that gyrates wildly according to the size of all outstanding debts, and can fall precipitously during a balance sheet recession? If the money supply is n dollars, and then it falls by n/5 to 0.8n, and then the Fed is directed by congress to print some amount of money and the money supply gets back to n dollars, are we really going to experience any inflation?

[Benko]

. remember that expert is a relative term, it does not say anything about the truth of one's beliefs. You can study 10,000 hours on a subject yet later be shown to have been completely incorrect as a result of some erroneous assumptions that you may have made.

Agreed. 

If you are an expert at e.g. designing bridges, you have a track record of bridges which either stood, or fell (google tacoma narrows video) i.e. you had feedback from reality.

If you live in some ivory tower, and do not get real world feedback on your beliefs, you can believe anything, and preach it.  Political correctness can add to the problem, because sometimes you are not  even allowed to speak the truth.