<i>If someone can’t climb out of the details, and see the bigger picture from multiple angles, they’re often wrong most of the time.</i><p>This works both ways. If someone can't get more than one level below the surface and understand the details that form the whole, they’re also often wrong much of the time. Just ask any boss I've ever had.
I would argue that this is <i>the</i> defining factor in what makes someone intelligent or not. If you're always revising your ways of thinking about a problem, your probability of converging on a solution is vastly greater than someone with a narrow, one-track focus. In fact, another article on the HN homepage (<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness/2012/10/18/how-do-you-spot-a-genius/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness...</a>) elaborates on this point of trying multiple "solution paths" to arrive at an answer to a problem.<p>Unfortunately, the vast majority of people get it in their head that they've discovered the "right way" and dismiss every other idea. This problem is particularly notorious in subjects like quantum mechanics. The field is so confusing that people find some kind of local comprehension maximum that they get stuck in and refuse to budge from that sort of ideology (which is often the <i>wrong</i> ideology by the way since QM is such a deep subject. Throw some quantum field theory or standard model physics at a quantum chemistry professor or TA and they won't know what to make of it).<p>To give a more concrete example: did you know that a spinning ball weighs more than the same ball when it is stationary? Tell this to someone decently knowledgable in physics and there's a good chance they'll argue vehemently against you based on their misunderstanding (or misinformation) of what they've learned in the past. Sometimes the effort to convince someone of an idea like this isn't worth the time; these people are locked into one way of thinking and take it as an affront to their ego. There's limited intelligence here. Don't want to be like this? Don't get angry when someone challenges you. That's the best way to start. I've never understood why so many people get upset if you try to point out a flaw in their reasoning. I've noticed this sort of anger much less frequently on HN (on the other hand, there's significantly more "you're wrong" posts than a normal discussion board).<p>In fact, do a little experiment if you wish. Look through HN stories and find places where people challenge each other in the comments. If you notice someone who says "you know what -- you're correct" or "yeah, that makes more sense", there's a good chance they make a lot of intelligent posts on here. If you find someone that <i>never</i> concedes to anyone else, it's likely they are locked into one and only one way of thinking and are unlikely to ever do anything considered "genius".
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson.<p>When I first read that quote in early High School I didn't understand it. It was the kind of thing that ate at me, I could not get what he was trying to say. To me, consistency was an important part of life; the old adage that you stick to your word. However, that quote transcends the idea of being consistent, because when you often make decisions without all of the information (especially in startups). As new information becomes available, you have to incorporate it into your decision. Sometimes it makes you look like a dick, or someone that doesn't know what direction they want to go to, but that's where different skills (leadership and sales) come in to be able to hold people together.
Keeping an open mind is a great philosophy, so long as your mind doesn't change so quickly that no one can coordinate actions with you. But I'm having a difficult time inferring the significance of this post.<p>On the one hand, if I'm constantly changing my mind, and my mind tends to change toward a stable, slow-changing correct solution, by definition, I'll be "right a lot", so long as I've had sufficient time to converge. In any case, I'll be right a lot more than either a person whose mind does not tend to change toward the correct solution, or someone whose mind does not change. This seems true by definition.<p>On the other hand, if the correct solution changes rapidly and dramatically, and my mind does not change as quickly, I will trivially be wrong a lot.<p>Likewise, focusing too much on "details that only support one point of view" seems wrong by construction, unless you magically pick the right point of view to begin with.<p>I'm not trying to be snarky here, seriously. I just feel like I must be missing the significance. I've reread the post several times, but I don't see it. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?
Good advice but I'm curious about:<p><i>"Jason Fried is the fastest white man you'll ever meet."</i><p>Is Jason actually really fast and/or was he an athlete at a prior time?
I never understood why consistent opinions are considered a good thing, it doesn't make any sense. If I realize I'm wrong, why should I stick to the wrong opinion?
Being right a lot is a core value of that Amazon requires in it's leaders. The rest of the list is available here:<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Values-Careers-Homepage/b?ie=UTF8&node=239365011" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Values-Careers-Homepage/b?ie=UTF8&...</a>
Bezos's observation reminds me of Philip Tetlock's conclusions in "Expert Political Judgement" (<a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7959.html" rel="nofollow">http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7959.html</a>). Tetlock studied it pretty rigorously and came to a number of conclusions, but the central thesis was that people who got things right the most were people who thought by building up lots of competing models and evaluating all of them (ie, having lots of little ideas) rather than guiding all their decisions by a single ideology.
Nothing to see here, but, of course, straight from the horse's mouth..)<p>This particular trait is of a much bigger idea - an active, aware, never satisfied beginners's mind, popularized in US by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunryu_Suzuki" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunryu_Suzuki</a><p>A settled, stale, stagnant mind is a worst possible mental decease from a Buddhist perspective, and, ironically, the most desired state of the mind for a member of a totalitarian country or organization.)
I work with someone who spends way too much time (IMO) making sure that he's not wrong. Typically this involves not taking a stand until the results are in and then claiming the position all along. Or simply lying about his position. After witnessing this repeatedly I basically lost all respect for this person and really dread any interaction.<p>Personally I don't care if someone (including myself) is right or wrong. I often have to make technology recommendations that may turn out to be wrong years down the line and end up costing the organization time and money. So far I've been pretty lucky. I find it helpful to always include caveats in my proposals and explain reasoning behind my recommendations. Of course putting in the time to understand the issue, the market and the history is key.<p>I don't have a problem taking a stand and be proven wrong or adjusting my position when new information becomes available. However, I wonder if this attitude is hurting my standing with the organization compared with this other guy who never seems to be wrong.
Sounds like a modest twist on the Hedgehog and the Fox, star of a thousand pop-science essays in the last few years:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox</a><p>Note that (1) I agree and (2) there is nothing silly about the comments or the link.
Just the other day during a design discussion I was arguing for X instead of Y and was reminded that I was the one who introduced Y earlier in the discussion. I was finally able to bring out Walt Whitman during a technical discussion and responded "I contain multitudes". :)
Makes a lot of sense to be honest. If ideas aren't held too dearly you'll be able to weed out the bad ones. A lot of people (myself included) have a certain irrational loss aversion when it comes to ideas. I'm sure one could find plenty of articles on this on LessWrong.
In other words, <i>be a scientist.</i> Consider the truth as a distant target, and our understanding only as an approximation based on the evidence we have right now.<p>Scientists have known this for years. They have made it their whole way of life—because it works, and it's true.<p>Smart people in all walks of life most certainly follow those same kinds of scientific principles. Bezos is spot on, there's just an entire branch of knowledge that's been spot on way before he was.
<i>He's observed that the smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they’d already solved.</i><p>I think he's spot on, and this has been the basis for my manifesto (<a href="http://jamesthornton.com/manifesto" rel="nofollow">http://jamesthornton.com/manifesto</a>) -- I like to think of it as continually <i>refining your perspective</i>.
Off-topic: how do they get typography so right?! If I just throw those fonts on my site they will look crappy, but their articles are always great looking.
Curious as to what Bezos thinks of the current state of politics. "He said people who were right a lot of the time were people who often changed their minds." Maybe he's voting for Mitt Romney.