Does being smart matter?

[maroon]

I work in software engineering. I have the misfortune, in my current job, to have worked in a department mostly staffed by people who were not smart enough and who were managed by people who were not smart enough. Believe me, this sucks. Software development is an abstract intellectual activity; it requires thought, design, analysis and the ability to visualise complex patterns. Dumb fucks (forgive me, but I've had months of battling these chimps) who think they can throw things together because they can manage a spreadsheet or did a bit of javascript work for some websites once, they just create chaos when let loose on complex tasks. These people can't reflect on what they do, they can't abstract the general principle from the specific example, they can't understand that taking some time at the start to think through a proper design will save days or weeks of wasted work in the future, they lack the judgement to tell good code from bad code. And because senior management don't pay enough attention (and lack experience), there's no proper authority to appeal to, so those of us who do have these skills waste much time on endless arguments with the incompetent.

After months of struggle to see standards respected and enforced, I've finally managed to tip the balance in favour of quality. Just by recruiting one smart guy into a team of five, I nearly doubled its skill level and productivity. Not soon enough to save the company, unfortunately; it's going to go under because people who weren't smart wasted much time doing stupid things.

In my job, being smart matters.

I work with programming/software engineering too.
Why deal with the crap? If you are in fact a solid software engineer; getting a job somewhere else won't be an issue if you can put what you have to offer on the table in an interview. Working in a profession such as ours can not possibly fun if the colleagues are incompetent; so why deal with that? Sounds like endless frustration, and you have my sympathy.

Personally the one thing I find more annoying than dumb people are people that are unable to communicate or deal with any social situations or teamwork. It's almost as bad, but actually less critical on the deliverables overall I'd say. The best is a solid combination of both in my opinion.

Good luck anyway, I hope it picks up or you sort yourself out with a new place

Edit: I'm absolutely no genius but I've programmed for about 10 years now and have a Comp. Sci. degree. You don't need extreme intelligence to be good at our job in my opinion. Just some experience, a respect for standards and a continuous drive for improvement. Being able to see patterns and reflect on different solutions given a problem are minimum requirements. Would people without these traits ever get into software dev. in the first place? If so, why? Maybe I'm just young and got lucky with my first job...

[itsbruce]

Being able to see patterns and reflect on different solutions given a problem are minimum requirements. Would people without these traits ever get into software dev. in the first place? If so, why?

The ability to judge competence is a feature of competence. The incompetent are typically not aware of their limitations, which is one reason why they do not learn or improve. That's why such people go into software engineering. As to why they are allowed in, well,

• IT is an ever-expanding field and the requirement for skilled people is much higher than the supply.
• Most people who are not software engineers do not realise the level of complexity and skill required. They do not respect the profession and think anybody can do it. When that is true of senior managers, they often appoint idiots and not just because they lack judgement; skilled software engineers often make them feel inadequate or tell them they can't have what they want.
• Following on from the above point, incompetent people in management or team leadership positions tend to promote and nurture other incompetent people under them. Competent people threaten their sense of self worth, whereas incompetent underlings make them feel wise and paternal.
• Some of the organisations with the most rigorous approach to standards are also the most deathly dull, initiative-killing places to work (e.g. large consultancies like Capgemini or Accenture).
• Software Engineering is the last refuge of the cowboy. It's difficult for most other people to judge what we do and many in the industry, even highly skilled people, like it that way. Unfortunately, this contributes to the same appointment of idiots mentioned a couple of points back.

There are more reasons but those cover a lot of it.

I prefer to work in small to medium size organisations - web start-ups, research outfits etc. This gives much more scope for learning, initiative, breadth of experience and opportunity but also has a very high luck factor in terms of the quality of people you end up working with.

Maybe I'm just young and got lucky with my first job...

If you are working somewhere with a high skill quotient, savour it. You will not always have this luxury. I am not so young and have a divorce draining my savings, so I have to think carefully about my career progress and stability and don't have the freedom simply to walk. Also, like a lot of geeks, I often find myself stuck in a broken workplace trying to fix it, because broken systems offend me, long after the idiots who helped to break it have cheerfully left. Many poorly-run software outfits keep going only because of this character trait in some of their employees.

[maroon]

Being able to see patterns and reflect on different solutions given a problem are minimum requirements. Would people without these traits ever get into software dev. in the first place? If so, why?

The ability to judge competence is a feature of competence. The incompetent are typically not aware of their limitations, which is one reason why they do not learn or improve. That's why such people go into software engineering. As to why they are allowed in, well,

• IT is an ever-expanding field and the requirement for skilled people is much higher than the supply.
• Most people who are not software engineers do not realise the level of complexity and skill required. They do not respect the profession and think anybody can do it. When that is true of senior managers, they often appoint idiots and not just because they lack judgement; skilled software engineers often make them feel inadequate or tell them they can't have what they want.
• Following on from the above point, incompetent people in management or team leadership positions tend to promote and nurture other incompetent people under them. Competent people threaten their sense of self worth, whereas incompetent underlings make them feel wise and paternal.
• Some of the organisations with the most rigorous approach to standards are also the most deathly dull, initiative-killing places to work (e.g. large consultancies like Capgemini or Accenture).
• Software Engineering is the last refuge of the cowboy. It's difficult for most other people to judge what we do and many in the industry, even highly skilled people, like it that way. Unfortunately, this contributes to the same appointment of idiots mentioned a couple of points back.

There are more reasons but those cover a lot of it.

I prefer to work in small to medium size organisations - web start-ups, research outfits etc. This gives much more scope for learning, initiative, breadth of experience and opportunity but also has a very high luck factor in terms of the quality of people you end up working with.

Maybe I'm just young and got lucky with my first job...

If you are working somewhere with a high skill quotient, savour it. You will not always have this luxury. I am not so young and have a divorce draining my savings, so I have to think carefully about my career progress and stability and don't have the freedom simply to walk. Also, like a lot of geeks, I often find myself stuck in a broken workplace trying to fix it, because broken systems offend me, long after the idiots who helped to break it have cheerfully left. Many poorly-run software outfits keep going only because of this character trait in some of their employees.

What you say makes a lot of sense.
I have worked a bit with several hired Capgemini consultants. They were/are all very skilled at their job and a pleasure to cooperate with. I never asked them how they liked their job though but I do assume they operate within pretty limited terms as far as creativity goes. I have a feeling that their wages make up for this in terms of motivation though

I am not so young and have a divorce draining my savings, so I have to think carefully about my career progress and stability and don't have the freedom simply to walk. Also, like a lot of geeks, I often find myself stuck in a broken workplace trying to fix it, because broken systems offend me, long after the idiots who helped to break it have cheerfully left. Many poorly-run software outfits keep going only because of this character trait in some of their employees.

I completely understand given the circumstance. Sounds like you are doing the right thing in terms of stability and doing the job you were employed to do! Must be frustrating that the leadership is not being able to separate a solid design and implementation from a poor one though. Credit should be given where credit is due and problems should be dealt with head-on; not left for a few individuals to pick up the pieces.

About senior management hiring unqualified people in the first place... I think some of the key criteria for successful software development teams are the management either having past experience as a developers at a high level of competence OR have an overall solid understanding of the actual complexities involved and therefore coordinate certain decisions with other employees that possess the necessary understanding to keep things rational and not some crazy gamble.

By the sounds of it your employer is lucky you aren't a walker/quitter. Hopefully one day they will realize this. Unfortunately if they are not upto speed it would probably require your absence for them to notice.

[thefinalsql]

Being smart does matter for lifting. Easier not to injure yourself if you are smart enough to follow directions and act upon them. You are even smarter if you can read differing instructions to follow and determine which instructions are the proper ones.

I applied analytical skills, separating a whole into its parts for study and interpretation to the Strong Lifts program, and decided before even trying it that is the right program for me.

[Malos]

Hay guys...first post. I generally made it a point to try to stay away from posting, but I couldn't hold myself back .

As mentioned in this thread before...there is an extremely large number blaming their intelligence for their weaknesses (poor work ethic, low motivation, over-analyzing things...). Those that do so are shifting the blame in the wrong direction.

Lets put myself in perspective here first - I would be on the list of people who was entirely unchallenged in high school, and even for a little while through University. My low/high was sleeping in front row during all lectures of multi-variable calculus course, handing in no homeworks, and ranking #1 nevertheless.

But that was absolutely pathetic, I realized that before I went into 3rd year of University, at which point I started pushing myself. And that's where the difference is. It is not that one's intelligence is really working against them, it is the inherent human laziness working against them and they are not smart enough to realize and fix that. I guess one could blame it on the school system which does not pressure students to perform to the best of their abilities, or parents that don't push their kids (parents do end up being important here), but it is for us to realize that we have to use the mental and physical resources we have. All people on this forum have realized that with the physical part - why is not everyone in line with the brain then?


Now, to go back to OP...
Being smart...does it matter...well what do you mean by matter?
1. Is being smart beneficial? Yes.
2. Is it key? No.

Is over-analyzing things smart? No, that just means you are building up a Hamlet complex. Part of being smart is to realize how much time you should contribute to analyzing something, and more so, how to allocate your mental time on your decision making. When you have to put out a fire, you can't look for the most efficient way to put out a fire - the time spent fully analyzing the situation is making it inefficient by default. (Not to say that you should poor water on a burning pan, but you don't need to figure out if rye or wheat flour works better).


*Editing made for at least some interpersonal and political correctness.*

[AyeDub]

There are so many different types of intelligence, and they go along with a whole range of abilities to express that intelligence through speech or in writing... so I don't judge anyone for either. My brain is quite intuitive and emotionally tuned, all the personality tests I've taken for jobs confirm that. But I'm not great at remembering large volumes of information by heart.

At school things came very easily to me, my parents had always read to me, explained things and answered my never-ending questions about everything I saw! So I was well prepared for school and got very good grades. This was without doing a lot of revision for exams or spending very long on homework. At the same time, I didn't smoke, drink or skip school like a lot of my peers, so I was good in that way.

But one thing I didn't learn at that time was perseverance, and how to work hard at something even though it's challenging. This is a great gift and something that I think is just as important in living a good life. In fact, it gives far more satisfaction than just being able to do something easily.

This is something I'm only just starting to learn, at the age of 27.

So I wouldn't say that being 'smart' is irrelevant, it helps to have intelligence (which includes self-awareness). I have maybe achieved more than some people purely because I can think clearly about a problem and express that thinking... but not as much as I would have if I had also worked my arse off.

Don't think there really is an answer to this one!

[metalface]

"Smarts" are like body types with different strengths and weaknesses among the smart people. My wife and I were both classified as "gifted" in school and were in the gifted programs throughout school. The funny thing is that we look at everything completely differently and find solutions to problems very, very differently. The key is finding something that plays to your strengths to maximize your "smarts". I typically can find solutions to complex problems, but fail attempting very simple tasks quite often..it's really weird, sometimes i feel retarded. I do know that any human can do anything they want if they have enough determination..simply being smart won't get you there.

Let me give you my example - My wife has a very high IQ, but she is a waitress because she truthfully lacks drive. I work with successful people all day that are half as smart as her when it comes to an IQ score because they have drive (if that is how you define smart, by IQ). Luckily I have drive or we'd be broke.

The moral is that people are smart in different ways. I have to call my brother, who is of average intelligance, way more for help than he has to call me for help. He just saves me for the technical stuff.


P.S.
Sometimes my indecisiveness is crippling. It takes me FOREVER to order at a restuarant because I'm analyzing all the variables involved with the different food options on the menu...completley rediculous. Sometimes I CAN'T decide and I have to have my wife choose for me so I can finally freaking eat!

[Mrmcd666]

I would say im smart. Was valedictorian of my class. Graduated with honours. highest grade point average in my high school when I graduated. I went to College on a 20, 000 dollar scholarship for Music and hated every second of it. I love music but I hate when they tell me how to play and what to play takes the fun out of it. My problem is I love to learn as much I can as I am a wikipedia whore (keep in mind I cross refercnce everything I read, as I know wikipedia can have faults) but Once I feel I have learned what I think I should learn I completly lose interest and want to do something else that's the big reason why I am not at my full potential for what I;m doing with my life. I'm working at the same shity call center job, keep in mind I am in mangement but so what. I have also always had a problem with Schools and what they decide to teach there students. I tend to always question everything and when a Teacher would tell us to write an assignemt about why this is important, I could never just follow instructions I would have to write why people think its importanat and why I don't. The teacher always loves the student that questions everything as long as your nice about it and just don;t protest what you preach cause that can just be annoying but make sure your voice is heard that's why I did so good in School ,I always had an opinion and a good schoolShouldrespect a student with a independent free speaking mind as I was. Once I hit College for Music I stopped going to classes and didn't do my work because I alerady knew I wasn't going to continue with this profession and lost my full scholarship and now I'm stuck where I am today. Did I fuck up? Of course I did. Do I regret it? Of course not, I wasn't going to be happy. So yes Im smart but in a way I know because the way I am I have a hard time over anylyzing everything as well as question everything and that tends to make me prone to not follow through with something, because in the back in my mind I am saying to myself, Do you really want to do this for the rest of your life? As you can tell by just reading this post I overthink everything. Sorry for the typos, trust me I'm smart enough to know they are there, but do I care? Hell no
Keep lifting
and remember there aint nothing to it but to do it

[Malos]

Your problem seems that despite thinking alot, you are not coming to correct conclusions. Does that count as being smart? I think when your conclusions come out faulty, you are being the other way around. You are focused on some element of brain operation, not its full-blown functionality.

[s0ku]

Intelligence is misunderstood in our culture. Most people attribute intelligence to things like academic success and intelligence quotient tests. Academic success is more a product of things like socioeconomic status and home environment. In other words, if you can't feed yourself and if you have an emotionally unstable family, you are at a substantial academic disadvantage anyway you spin it. I feel that to congratulate someone for having good grades is to congratulate them for rolling the dice well. I don't mean to discredit the time and effort these individuals put into their work, but having the opportunity to do work in a healthy environment is more than half the challenge in your early academic career, and that part of the challenge is something that is almost entirely out of your hands in both primary and secondary education, which are your most formative years.

I don't even want to get started on intelligence quotient tests. The fact that certain races are markedly lower than others is evidence that culture is part of "intelligence" in these tests, which is to say that they're mostly irrelevant in regards to general, objective intelligence. These tests beg the question of whether or not objective intelligence even exists, in my opinion.

Intelligence just seems impossible to really define. It's easier to work with when you break it down into facets. Some people possess exceptional emotional intelligence -- they can understand others empathize remarkably well. Some work well with logic. Others with abstract concepts. Admittedly, some of us possess more of these qualities at once, but not one, or even a combination for that matter, makes you wholly intelligent. Some, especially ones that net you social status and power, will make you look better and "smarter" in the eyes of others, but that's irrelevant to the case of what intelligence is. Irrelevant, but unfortunately, the focus of our materialistic western culture.

[s0ku]

(forgot to get to my main point)

I think the bottom line is that, like most things in life, tenacity and perseverance build the road to long-term success, if you've been fortunate with opportunities in life. Yeah, some people are gifted in certain ways, but that drive, motivation, or whatever you want to call it is absolutely necessary to get to where you ultimately want to be, have you the chance and opportunity.

[FilthyMcNasty]

Your problem seems that despite thinking alot, you are not coming to correct conclusions. Does that count as being smart? I think when your conclusions come out faulty, you are being the other way around. You are focused on some element of brain operation, not its full-blown functionality.

This must be an intelligent comment. I don't understand it.

[luco]

I took a career advice test when I was 16. It was a day of doing all sorts of mental ability and interest tests. At the end of the day I had an interview with a supposed advice/conclusion. They told me I scored equally well on everything and equally bad on all interests. I could do anything and wanted to do nothing.
It took me 5 more years to decide what I wanted to do with my life. By that time, many of my former classmates, whom I considered to be less intelligent, had finished college and were already working a job that interested them and made them feel good about themselves.

Point being: I believe this is because they were taught to work hard in school to achieve something and their results motivated them. I never worked hard and still passed my classes in high school, hating everything I did and not feeling proud of any of my results, since i hadn't done anything to earn them.

This has probably been said before (I haven't read all 6 pages of discussion), but intelligence without motivation is not going to help anyone.

[jflynn]

My angle would be a simple rephrasing of this question.

Is it useful to wonder about whether being smart matters?

The answer is no

[itsbruce]

My angle would be a simple rephrasing of this question.

Is it useful to wonder about whether being smart matters?

The answer is no

Couldn't disagree more. A little reflection and self-evaluation is a very valuable thing. My life is plagued by morons who don't bother with it.