"Why smart people defend bad ideas."

I recently came across this paper written by Scott Berkun with the above title.

http://www.changethis.com/16.defenseofbadideas

I recommend reading this via your browser because the PDF version opens up completely full screen like a power point presentation.

It is simply brilliant.

"The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they’re wrong."

“Intelligent people, when assembled into an organization, will tend toward collective stupidity.”

that all the things you've done shouldn't have, by all that is fair in the universe, already killed you."

:rofl:

And obviously written with the sole purpose to promote his OTHER book on project management.

(which of course is not a valid argument against the content of the article)


I dont like to out myself, but I am a member of a well-known club for "smart people". For whatever it's worth, the peole in there are as diverse as the rest of the world.

Intelligence is not a sanctory from bad ideas. However, I find that intelligent people tend to be more open to debate. They won't end a discussion by saying "well, the Bible is good 'nuff fer me".
They are also generally more likely to accept good counter arguments. You see, we think about what others say.

It's true that some smart peole like to argue and are always suspect of debating an issue just for debate's sake (moi?). I think that is for the same reason that some people like to armwrestle at any opportunity they get. They're good at it.

But notice the use of some. You can't stereotype smart people any more than you can other demagogic.

In short, this article is a piece of crap and I'll be happy to debate that position with anybody.

He isnt talking about all smart people. He is talking about those smart people who defend bad ideas. He is answering the question 'why do smart people defend stupid positions'

Then he talks a little about groupthink and then about the natural tendency to overvalue short term concerns over long term concerns.

I certainly may have missed it, but I dont see anywhere in this that the author suggests that intelligent people are less diverse than the rest of the world, although they obviously are. Any group of people selected for a common charecteristic is going to be less diverse than the rest of the world.

You seem to have construed this article as an attack on intelligent people, that isnt at all what I got from it.

"The problem with smart people is that they like to be right..."

This is not an exclusive characteristic of smart people and the author does not distinguish 'some' smart people.
After studying logic for many years (the author's claim to authority on this subject), he also fails to inform us why this is consider a 'problem'.

"Smart people often fall in the trap of prefering to be right..."

What a brilliant observation. Of course if you prefer to be wrong, you are (in my humble opinion) dumb.

"If you want your smart people to be as smart as possible..."

This is spoken like a true project manager who feels superior over his little herd of engineers. Apparently smart people cannot only be grouped, but they can also be owned.

Need more?

The author never suggests that it is an exclusive characteristic of smart people.



It is fairly obvious in context that the author is merely making a general observation about smart people, not stating a definitive fact about all smart people.



Of course he informs us why this is considered a problem. It is considered a problem because it can lead intelligent people to defend bad positions. I thought his point was fairly clear.



I didnt realize all observations were required to be brilliant.

And you seem to have missed his point. He isnt suggesting that anyone would prefer to be wrong, simply that preferring to be right can lead smart people to pretend they are right when they are not.



Something can be "yours" without implying ownership. Can you provide some support for interpreting it to mean ownership?

Look this article is far from amazing, but your criticisms arent really fair.

Only in the opening paragraph does he bother to refer to some smart people. In the rest of the article there is no more reference to 'these' or any repeat of the word 'some'. The opening saves him from any clear implications, but there is certainly a suggestive nature to the text.


"Liking to be right" is a problem because it leads to defending bad positions? There are at least a few logical steps skipped to draw that conclusion.
How about "liking to be right" is NOT a problem because it leads to a tendency to do more research and be informed on subjects.
How about "Smart people are MORE LIKELY to be right"?
The author seems to deliberately jump to a false conclusion (after all he is a logic major, he should know these things).

He clearly does NOT describe why the desire to be right is a bad thing, he basis his whole thesis on one example (defending bad ideas). By not mentioning that the desire to be right in general leads to good ideas, he again suggests that smart people commonly ENJOY defending bad ideas.
In a professional setting this is of course never true.


No, it can't. That's why it is a POSSESSIVE pronoun.


Well, I wouldn't want to be unfair. So let's just put it to the litmus test. Replace all occurrences of 'smart' by 'black' and see how the article read then.

On edit:
Again, this book is written purely from a PM's perspective. This is written to convince other lion-tamers that they can hold power over their animals.
Well Siegfried, not all animals are created equal.

Only in the opening paragraph does he bother to refer to some smart people. In the rest of the article there is no more reference to 'these' or any repeat of the word 'some'. The opening saves him from any clear implications, but there is certainly a suggestive nature to the text.

Yes the text suggests that smart people can defend stupid positions sometimes... your objection to this is?

He is speaking generally of smart people. Pointing out that smart people can end up arguing a stupid point because they would rather pretend to be right than face the fact that they are wrong.

At no point in this piece does the author suggest or imply that every single intelligent person does this. Although I bet they do. It is a pretty universal human tendancy.

"Liking to be right" is a problem because it leads to defending bad positions? There are at least a few logical steps skipped to draw that conclusion.

It is a perfectly coherent opinion, not a mathmatical proof, so Im really not sure what you are talking about

How about "liking to be right" is NOT a problem because it leads to a tendency to do more research and be informed on subjects.

The author isnt stating that liking to be right will always cause people to defend bad positions. Im sure he would agree with you that liking to be right is not a problem when it motivates people to become more informed or think more critically. He never said that liking to be right was in itself a problem, only that it is a problem when people who are wrong pretend to be right.

How about "Smart people are MORE LIKELY to be right"?

How about that indeed. What on earth does that have to do with anything?

The author seems to deliberately jump to a false conclusion (after all he is a logic major, he should know these things).

He never really attempts to logically prove anything, so Im really not sure what you mean.

He clearly does NOT describe why the desire to be right is a bad thing, he basis his whole thesis on one example (defending bad ideas).

Not only is that not his thesis, he doesnt even say that in the piece. He never says that the desire to be right is a bad thing. He says that the desire to be right can lead people to stubbornly defend a bad position.

By not mentioning that the desire to be right in general leads to good ideas, he again suggests that smart people commonly ENJOY defending bad ideas.

Why would he mention that? Firstly its rather obvious, secondly it has nothing to do with what he is writing about.

And he most certainly doesnt suggest that smart people commonly enjoy defending bad ideas. That is proposterous.

No, it can't. That's why it is a POSSESSIVE pronoun.

Give me a break.

So if I say that that New York Yankees are "my team" it means I am claiming to own them? If I walk up to you and compliment you on your beautiful family, am I claiming you own them?

Use of the possessive does not always mean ownership, your argument here is based on a linguistic oversimplification.

Well, I wouldn't want to be unfair. So let's just put it to the litmus test. Replace all occurrences of 'smart' by 'black' and see how the article read then.

Yes if we substantially changed the article it would mean something different. Amazing!

Im really quite amazed that you could read this piece and come out thinking it was an attack on intelligent people.

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn´t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

It's a short piece, written by a professional who is trying to promote a new book. In order to keep the piece short and snappy, he has to narrow the focus of his article, and avoid nuances that might slow it down. While he might be a scholarly person in real life, what he has produced here is somewhat glib and superficial. But he is trying to spark interest in his book with a quick, easy-to-read piece, and this fits the bill.

I see little bias against "smart people," other than an attempt to distance himself from his academic background. He's probably aware that some people in the business world might be put off by that.

So I enjoy the one-liners, take whatever crumbs of wisdom I find, and move on. I don't think MENSA needs to TP his house or anything. ;)

I'm probably taking this a little too personal because I have worked with (they would prefer under) too many of these people.

They believe that genius (and trust me, I use that term loosely) needs to be guided and harnessed in order for it to be productive. In truth, productivity has suffered enormously under an ever increasing weight of corporate bureaucracy, introduced by characters like this author, who have very little to contribute to actual solutions.

I could go on for a long time on the subject, but...that would probably be a bad idea ;)

In the unlikely event that I loose sleep over this article, I will revisit the subject.

work. Maybe I should rethink what I said about the TPing....

but, i guess still in use.

a more contemporary model is integrated intelligence where critical thinking is only one kind of IQ. there's also Emotional (affective) Intelligence, Creative (intuitive) Intelligence, Sensory IQ, Physical IQ -- and so on.

amen that folks with high Linear/Critical Intelligence are often numbskulls when it comes to tending to emotional needs, or recognizing affective clues.

since his essay focuses on work issues i'll use a common workplace illustration:

BRAINSTORMING
i've been a creative director for many years. brainstorming is supposed to be the easy stuff. you just generate ideas and get them up on the white board. someone with high IQ in linear thinking is going to be good at taking the requirements and deducing a solution. but how are they going to work in a group? if they have low emotional IQ they aren't going to understand that everyone gets a chance at it. they might jump the gun and start criticizing the ideas which is not allowed (can't tell you how difficult it is to get people to fly right on this). if they have low Intuitive IQ, they probably won't see the global picture -- that a particular idea fits the subject at hand and works in the larger brand message in the long run. If they have low Sequential IQ, they might not understand the need to brainstorm at all. they might criticize ideas on the basis of issues way down the road that have no bearing on the subject at hand. people with low Sequential IQ often get stuck in the muck.

he's right, that "smarty pants" are often lonely people, but that's not the whole picture.

turn it around. what about someone with high Emotional IQ and low Logical IQ. these are often our best friends. they don't challenge you on a Critical level and seem to always know the right thing to say at the right time. They might not discover a cure for cancer, but they will make you feel best when you are suffering.

etc etc....

intelligence is multi-faceted.

should just pal around with wackos like Charles Murray, who also makes a big deal out of IQ.

"Intelligence" is a subjective idea which can't be objectively measured.

the BIG picture is a good thing. little slices get us stuck in the muckety muck.