The Smartest Person in the Room...
In some fields of scholarship and research, "smart" people are given special status. Whatever "smart" means, those persons would seem to be offscale. Now, of course, one might ask if their achievements reflect that judgment, or whether their being smart is what you want in leadership or in making crucial decisions.
We are told by psychologists that cognitive capacity declines with age, albeit that capacity may have a wide distribution at any single age, and is surely influenced by the environment and history. There is a tradition that suggests that decisionmaking is connected to cognitive capacity, although it is realized that experience and judgment may dominate, and be appropriately dominating, over cognitive capacity.
The sociologists of science suggest that productivity and inventiveness of scientists, say, seems not be be a matter of age, at least until they are, say, above 70. They may choose different problems as they mature, and one is usually speaking of strong scientists. With weaker scientists, it is not so clear what is going on, since productivity and inventiveness are so highly rewarded that those who do not rank high in such are likely discouraged.
In general, there are persons, usually male, who make sure that others know they are the smartest person in the room or in the castle. They are sharp, combative, unwilling to concede anything. If fortunate, they actually do fine work, but that is not guaranteed. For their cognitive capacities, in terms of smartness, may not allow them to focus their energies on the most vital and useful problems and issues. They may be paralyzed by unrealistic standards for work.
If you have a department populated by the smartest people in the room, there could be lively interchange and energy, for the arguments and disagreements might well be on a high plane. But the contest among the smart may also lead to exhaustion.
The message for those who are not the smartest people in the room is that they ought continue their work, stay out of the fray, learn what they can from the smarties, and if possible domesticate the smarties so that they do not destroy the community. The question that might be asked, all the time, Is what Smarto saying helpful in working on this problem, or is it rather marginal and of little account?
When there are judgments to be made by a community or a committee, the smartest persons in the room may well be perversely destructive. If you are chair of a committee or in charge of a community, you have to figure out how to make the smartest persons happy, while likely having to ignore their judgments, and for good reasons. They cannot be humiliated or humbled, but they can be managed with lots of stroking and private conversations, and attributing your paying little attention to their position or point-of-view to higher ups in the organization who are clearly dumbassadors but they have to be listened to.
We are told by psychologists that cognitive capacity declines with age, albeit that capacity may have a wide distribution at any single age, and is surely influenced by the environment and history. There is a tradition that suggests that decisionmaking is connected to cognitive capacity, although it is realized that experience and judgment may dominate, and be appropriately dominating, over cognitive capacity.
The sociologists of science suggest that productivity and inventiveness of scientists, say, seems not be be a matter of age, at least until they are, say, above 70. They may choose different problems as they mature, and one is usually speaking of strong scientists. With weaker scientists, it is not so clear what is going on, since productivity and inventiveness are so highly rewarded that those who do not rank high in such are likely discouraged.
In general, there are persons, usually male, who make sure that others know they are the smartest person in the room or in the castle. They are sharp, combative, unwilling to concede anything. If fortunate, they actually do fine work, but that is not guaranteed. For their cognitive capacities, in terms of smartness, may not allow them to focus their energies on the most vital and useful problems and issues. They may be paralyzed by unrealistic standards for work.
If you have a department populated by the smartest people in the room, there could be lively interchange and energy, for the arguments and disagreements might well be on a high plane. But the contest among the smart may also lead to exhaustion.
The message for those who are not the smartest people in the room is that they ought continue their work, stay out of the fray, learn what they can from the smarties, and if possible domesticate the smarties so that they do not destroy the community. The question that might be asked, all the time, Is what Smarto saying helpful in working on this problem, or is it rather marginal and of little account?
When there are judgments to be made by a community or a committee, the smartest persons in the room may well be perversely destructive. If you are chair of a committee or in charge of a community, you have to figure out how to make the smartest persons happy, while likely having to ignore their judgments, and for good reasons. They cannot be humiliated or humbled, but they can be managed with lots of stroking and private conversations, and attributing your paying little attention to their position or point-of-view to higher ups in the organization who are clearly dumbassadors but they have to be listened to.
Comments
Post a Comment