> <i>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.</i><p>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.
<i>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.</i><p>The world <i>is</i> 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.<p>I do agree with the overall point. Jargon can be used to simplify communication by using a language all parties understand, <i>or</i> 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".
> [Smart people] think the world isn’t complicated, period.<p>um.. what!?<p>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.
<i>if you genuinely understand something — really, truly understand it — then it doesn’t seem complicated and you can explain it rather simply</i><p>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.
"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."<p>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.
<p><pre><code> People who truly understand their subject should have no
trouble writing for a popular audience.
</code></pre>
This is false for at least two reasons.<p>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 <i>want</i> to write in that way.<p>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.<p>All in all, I doubt whether 10% of all people that 'truly understand their subject' can write for a popular audience.
I think the author is just projecting.<p>1. There are plenty of smart people that are bad communicators.<p>2. Life is compicated and if you can't see the complexity you probably suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
From article:<p><i>But the larger consequence is that if you’re smart the world doesn’t seem very complicated</i><p>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.
I think he's conflating "smart"[1] and "good at communicating".<p>[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.
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.
This is actually my own test of whether or not I've really grokked something:<p>If I can't explain it to someone such that she understands it as well, I haven't really understood that something.
<i>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.</i><p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>Meanwhile the other guy may have made his opinion prevail and gain something because of it.
Posted by me in his comments section:<p>"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."<p>PS. I'm not discussing vouchers today.
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.
There are two ways to seem smart:<p>1) Over-complicate everything.<p>2) Over-simplify everything.<p>Aaron's essay describes the former. It, and this comment, are examples of the latter.