Smart People Choke Under Pressure

People perceived as the most likely to succeed might also be the most likely to crumble under pressure. A new study finds that individuals with high working-memory capacity, which normally allows them to excel, crack under pressure and do worse on simple exams than when allowed to work with no constraints. Those with less capacity score low, too, but they tend not to be affected by pressure.

Comments

Thinking Inside The Square

[fembots]

The friendly article mentioned that pressure causes smart people to think "Oh no, I can't screw up".

While it can be true since it's posted on the internet, personally I believe they (i.e. I am not one) choke when they're required to do things under a strict guideline, which restricts them from thinking outside the square, but it's thinking outside the square that makes them so smart in the first place.

So it's more like "Oh no, what are these rules and how do I follow them?" or "WhyTF should I do these?".

On the other hand, less smart people, like those who upgrade from Windows 1.0 to Windows Longhorn religously because MS told them so, are usually well trained to follow a certain set of rules, so regardless of the pressure/threats/deadline, they know only one thing - "Follow these procedures and policies and I'll be okay".

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think you're onto something in the first part of your post. That sort of thing is echoed in my experience. I'm definitely the out of the box thinker. It almost hurts when I've got to understand how other people think. I dunno, sometimes, I see the geometry of what's going on, and I don't think that many other people think the same way. I've got to understand how a small part of the machine works before I can be sure how the rest works. I think this is why I sometimes have problems grasping the Big Picture.

Anyway...

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

...but it's thinking outside the square that makes them so smart in the first place.

sure sure ... but ya know what? somethings ain't meant for "thinking outside the square (box?)". For example, what does a calculus exam have to do with thinking outside the box?

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[fembots]

It does happen when you only have 2 seconds left before all your precious mod points expire.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually mod'ed you offtopic, because I did RTFA, and the first part of your comment, while perhaps slightly thought-provoking has little to do with the article. As for the remainder of your now-removed from the 'top-of-the-comments-area', it skews out of control into some sort of microsoft rant.

Not a winner, try again.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Spy der Mann]

Also, people trained to follow rules choke when they're asked to be inventive. A friend works as an executive in a major fast food business, and he told me how they classify employees according to their way of solving problems (psychometric test). The worst thing you can do to somebody who "follows the rules" is ask him to be inventive. He'll break up in no time.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, people trained to follow rules choke when they're asked to be inventive.

I do not agree with that at all. I worked in a military nuclear power plant. Procedures were to be followed 100% of the time by everyone with ZERO exceptions. When things happened that were "out of the box", like fires, flooding, reactor or steam plant related issues or simple technical problem resolution, or basically situations that obviously there was no specific "procedure" for, people would rise to the occasion and do outstanding jobs. There were a percentage that were a little questionable but with more experience in the stressful situations, they would come around.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[iMaple]

On the other hand, less smart people, like those who upgrade from Windows 1.0 to Windows Longhorn religously because MS told them so, are usually well trained to follow a certain set of rules, so regardless of the pressure/threats/deadline, they know only one thing - "Follow these procedures and policies and I'll be okay".

Well I dont know. Those who upgrade to Longhorn from Win 1.0 may be 'followers' with 'average intellect' but if I still see someone using Win 1.0 I know for sure that he is NOT smart (unless of course he has a 8086 or 286 based system :) )

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

That actually totally depends on the teacher. Back when I was going to major in Astrophysics (switched to Literature, don't ask), the best Calc teacher I had (second semester) gave excellent test that were not only hard, but required thinking outside the box. These were tests that you had to take your class and textbook given understanding of the principles, and extend that thinking to something whose nature you had (probably) never seen before. That's a math test, since math is about thinking, not regurgitating crap like most lazy teachers put together.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[techno-vampire]

...what does a calculus exam have to do with thinking outside the box?

Well, there are a number of techniques you can use to solve a problem in calculus, and some are better/quicker on certain classes of problem than others. Picking the right one for each problem on the test instead of just automatically using the most recent one you've learned gets more questions answered faster, leaving you more time for the hardest ones.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[techno-vampire]

When things happened that were "out of the box", like fires, flooding, reactor or steam plant related issues or simple technical problem resolution, or basically situations that obviously there was no specific "procedure" for, people would rise to the occasion and do outstanding jobs.

That's because you were still working inside a "bigger box," containing drills and training for such things as fires and other emergencies. Although I've never worked with reactors, I was in the military, and I know how well they drill things into you. They may not have covered the exact circumstances you find yourself in, but you learn enough about what has to be done to fill in the blanks.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[adeydas]

i agree with this completely.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[dnoyeb]

I have seen something related. I work with lots of engineers. Most want to be told what to do. They seem to want to put a high level of thinking on a very focused task. When the thinking becomes broad, they tend shy away.

People seem to need rules to break.

In my experience with engineering, the more you can work _without_ information the more valuable you are. But engineers always want to get all the information before they begin...

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[pHatidic]

It's comments like this that make me wish posts could be moderated above five

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[The_Laughing_God]

When I was in high school, I admired the "tough" teachers, who gave hard exams and had "old fashioned standards", three of my math teachers were like that. They were proud that they routinely gave homework problems that even engineer parents couldn't solve (with the limited methods the kids had been taught).

I left high school early, and got an A in Calculus at Harvard, where the course was rather loosely structured: lecture attendance was optional; you took exams when you felt like it; and there was a pool of fresh exams, so you could take a different exam on each topic (up to twice) if you later gained a deeper insight into a concept, emphasized the wrong concepts in your self-study or simply blew a test.

My high school calc teacher was rather offended by my departure (she'd openly said I'd never amount to anything) and when I mentioned my Harvard "A" to the department chairman on a return visit, she challenged me to take HER final [She'd apparently done this with other students who'd left early, and none had passed.) I passed, but I didn't do particularly well. (Much as the engineering parents might've done, I suppose)

However, I stayed in touch with several of my fellow Honors Math students who had aced her course and went to college in Cambridge. I think they'd all agree that I remained better and more creative in basic calculus than them -- even the ones who went to MIT (I'm not dissing MIT; I've long been associated with that school)

Though I have always been a big fan of alternative approaches to education, it was over ten years and two doctorates later before I realized that these "tough, old-school" teachers hadn't been teaching very well at all. Their "tough" problems really tested how well you retained the trickier examples from of their homework problems.

Though they were quite good at instilling the fundamentals of Algebra 2, Calculus, etc., they hadn't really given their students much skill at "free-form" math. Sadly, in the real world, all math problems are free form: creativity and insight are invaluable, but limiting yourself to specific chosen techniques is almost always a meaningless exercise.

It really saddens me, because I still have a profound respect for "old school" teachers. The problem is: just being "tough" and "old school" isn't enough, and I think many such dedicated teachers would change their methods somewhat and become even more outstanding teachers, if only someone could make them fully understand this one weakness in their teaching, but instead they believe that their daily experience reaffirms the validity of their methods.

I was fortunate to have one teacher, in two different high school courses, who had been a former engineer and valued creative solutions. He also became our Math League coach in those years, and suddenly we went from the bottom of our local league to the top of the state [I still grin when I remember walking through the cafeteria "staging area" for the meets, and hearing the former top schools asking "who are these guys] Our success wasn't just due to his teaching -we barely did any prep, compared to the Powerhouses in our league- but was equally due to his encouragement of creative thinkers, including freshmen (like myself and a coupple of others who I fully admit were more talented at math than I was). Before his tenure, only the Seniors with the best grades (and a few exceptional Juniors) were encouraged to join.

That last point is important: the juniors/seniors on the team when I was a freshman were good, and certainly knew more math than we underclassmen did, make no mistake, but we had, nonetheless, been near the bottom of our league, so I can only guess that they hadn't done well with problems for which they hadn't been specifically prepped, and our math league categories leaned heavily toward "free form" problems, as opposed to "solve this equation".

Suddenly I'm flooded with repressed high school memories. Man, what a waste of life tht would've been, If it hadn't been for the girls [who says geeks can't date like demons?]. Just for the record, though, this isn't high school bitterness. I'm a 40-something, and the past two decades have offered many fresher things to be bitter about!

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy it.

Take a typical problem; part technology, part people, and part process. If you remember who you are talking to at any given time and speak to the correct set of experience; it's cake.

If you don't see influencers, recommenders, and decision makers as a natural habit; you won't be the closer. If you don't understand that the definition of the problem leads to solutions, heroes, and villains as second nature you're going to struggle.

Shake and stir with the right amount of apathy and experience and you'll close the issue every time or at least more than those who are burning all their cycles on the task at hand.

If you are sharp enough and bored enough; you'll build the experience to drive to real value rather than some bullshit PKI or SLA.

Cheers.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Triffid_Hunter]

that sounds about right from my experience :)

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on how closely they actually followed empirical procedure in the studies used as support, this may be useful-but its likely interpretation is lamentable as it could excuses poor performance for despite all practical applications of great intelligence requiring both a disciplined and a multi-faceted manner of thinking. Historically, Napoleon demonstrated it by understanding both careful consideration of minutiae and creative/logical-practical strategies such that his empire would have defeated all of Western Europe and Russia except for the lack of properly trained officers. I would venture that Thomas Jefferson, with innumerable inventions and penchant for strict daily rules is another useful example. Moltke, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Hawking, and innumerable others demonstrate this concept in more modern settings. This study could provide a small amount of potentially empirical evidence for that division, and it may be possible to adapt education practices to encourage in everyone both in a greater equality so that it is not an excuse.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Cryptnotic]

If it hadn't been for the girls [who says geeks can't date like demons?].

I think geeks generally do date like demons (bad manners, poor social skills), which may be part of the cause of their general unpopularity.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[koekepeer]

smart people do upgrade their windows installation. not only because MS told them so, but also because they get more things done (and because it's less of a security nightmare, although the 1.0 to XP - current version instead of "promiseware" - upgrade probably would introduce security nightmares hehe).

in a corporate environment, it doesn't matter what MS says, it matters what the companies' policy is. if your boss tells you to upgrade you better do it. that's smart. and pragmatic.

idealistism and intellectual/technical freedom is IMO a much better explanation than smartness to choose the OSS/Free/whatever way (if this is what you're implicit;y trying to say to plaese the /. *nix fanboys *grin*)

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[lasindi]

The worst thing you can do to somebody who "follows the rules" is ask him to be inventive.

It seems that there are lots of follow-the-rules people around. My dad used to be a physics professor at UCLA. At first he gave tests with, say, 5 hard "word problems," and if you got 2 or 3 of them right, you got an A. His students hated him for it and complained a lot. He then tried making his tests into the type that have tons of "plug and chug" problems that usually involve just number-crunching with straight-forward equations. He suddenly became more popular. If you look for yourself in the classroom, you see that this is generally true. Students hate having to think for themselves and reason out solutions for "word problems." They'd rather do 50 problems with that all use the same formula than come up with one complete solution themselves.

lasindi

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[devonbowen]

I had a high school physics teacher that stressed creativity. His labs were always along the lines of "measure gravity". He'd always have plenty of stuff sitting around to use and he'd help people when they asked for hints. But generally he didn't care how you measured gravity as long as you did it.

Another lab came with a target and a dart gun. The target had numbers 1-10 written in concentric circles. You had to fire the dart gun from a given distance and hit the target. The number was your lab score (or at least that was the joke). You could do this by raising the dart gun and calculating the fall or by tilting the gun or whatever.

My high school grades were always barely average. But I aced that course.

Devon

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one reason why I found maths(and many/most subjects) in high school very tedious. Almost all of it involved memorizing algorithms(or memorizing facts like dates or theories etc) and simply robotically applying them to each situation. It was always "This is how you do it. Now do it." Most of it was rote learning, with no true understanding. Whereas my mindset tended to be "Why do we do it that way? Who decided we do it this? How did they work out to do it that way?" "Are there other ways I could find to do it?" etc etc.

And the sad thing is that the most common answer to "Why?" was answered in a fashion like "Well you need to get good grades, which will enable you to get into a good college, to get a good job". Which I supposed would lead to working 40+ years of your life with you employer telling you "This is how you do it. Do it." I suppose I just went "well fuck that" at some stage and dropped from an A student to a D student and concentrated instead on intellectual activities I actually had passion for outside of school.

In my experience many of the kids who do well in school are not those with the highest intellectual abilities, or if they are they lack any self directed passion. Sure they can memorize and they can repeat and they study what they are told to study. But they seem to lack the self directed passion and true joy of pursuing intellectual things. The kids with the highest abilities often feel bored out of their brains being boxed into a system that tries to tell them what they should be learning and doesn't allow exploration into ideas and subjects which are beyond what is strictly predefined in the course outlines.

I'd argue that a large parts of the current Western style of education would benefit students and everyone else if it were changed in some fundemental ways. Amongst those changes would be the the allowance for more open-ended flexible courses and more options for self-directed learning. Passion for learning tends to be a passion for exploration, and exploration involves finding ones way through things by making choices for onself. You cannot properly explore something if you are being rigidly directed where to go and what to do by someone else.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[ArsenneLupin]

Sadly, in the real world, all math problems are free form: creativity and insight are invaluable, but limiting yourself to specific chosen techniques is almost always a meaningless exercise.

I beg to differ. There is one endeavor where "sticking to specific techniques" is needed for success: SQL injection against ASP-based websites.

With SQL injection, you do not get access to the full power of SQL, but only have access to a limited subset of commands. You must solve the problem (root the site) using that limited subset.

Maybe the site uses MS Access rather than Sequel sewer? Bye bye chaining commands using semicolons. And GROUP BY / HAVING 1=1 hacks become unavailable as well.

Maybe it's one of those rare insecure Php sites? Bye bye using the all-powerful single-quote character. You have to find a field element that is being used as an (unchecked) numeric value (or as a sort key...) because you can't get out of a string. But you can't get into a string either, so each string needs to be constructed laboriously using char(48,119,110,101,100,33) or something equivalent.

Or often, you don't get to see the actual error message, but get only two slightly different high-level messages, depending on the exact error: welcome to the wonderful world of reading tables bit by bit!

Or, worst of all: field size constraints (your leet SQL command needs to fit into a very limited space), or characters that are "forbidden" for no reason at all (I once came accross a site, that although running SQL server would apparently not allow me to input semicolons (%3B). It was an input filter thingy though, and replacing them with linefeeds (%0A, or even %0A--%0A) let me in.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

I would also add that forcing students to follow are strict method with no deviations from the set path is suppressive (and perhaps destructive) of creativity too.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[hwoolery]

An 'A' at Harvard?!?! Why that's but a 'B' anywhere else... except for Stanford where it would be whatever comes after an 'A+'.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Mycroft_VIII]

That dart challenge (as stated) is easy if indoors. Shoot straight down. Fasten the gun exactly over the center at the given distance then pull the trigger.
Gets tougher if you have to do it outside (wind) or can't do vertical or both.

Mycroft

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[localman]

Your example seems to me to be entirely about free form creativity! You may be using a subset of SQL, but you're using a superset of that subset's intended usefulness. So I would say that rooting like that takes quite a bit of thinking outside the box.

Cheers.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[1lus10n]

I would second a large part of your post. Most notably that engineers want as much info as possible BEFORE they start. It is largely do to most engineers not wanting to go back and re-write or re-do everything because the information changed.

AKA work smarter not harder.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Mycroft_VIII]

No kidding the set rules way to do everything can be stupidly applied.
I had a math teacher in highschool (freshman iirc, was a while back, could have been the previous year) that insisted every step in solving a problem be shown, so I wrote every step I took. and then got docked on my score for not showing every step, despite getting the right answer almost every time.
I was doing in one step what he thought should be two or three, but to me it was one step and conceptually splitting some of those things was like stoping 3/4 of the way through a step in walking.
His explanation that If I 'skiped' steps (that to me didn't exist) I wouldn't learn and that made no sense.
Now I know some might be tempted to take his side but this was simple arithmetic within basic algebra. His steps literly added complication where it could teach nothing to anyone ready to take the class, and anyone not ready wouldn't be helped by what for everyone else was a diversion from the actual principles and mechanisms in algebra.

Mycroft

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Ibag]

Speaking as an MIT student, I think that there are two sides to the coin. On one hand, if you don't have a large enough bag of tricks, your creativity might not be enough to help you solve a problem in a reasonable time frame. On the other hand, if you don't have creativity, you won't be able to soslve the problems tht your tricks don't cover, and you might not see how to apply the tricks you have anyway.

Unfortunately, creativity is not something that can be easily taught, and the creative people will remain creative unless they have are told that different but correct solutions are wrong.

However, this still leaves two options for teaching creative people: you can focus on methods and hope that their creativity allows them to apply and expand them, or you can teach them background and hope that they either can make a contribution to theory or can manage when they get to problems they weren't taught.

I'm fortunate to be a mathematician, so I don't get too bogged down in methods, but I've taken enough engineering related courses to know that some people teach more "how" than "why". Does this kill people's creativity? To the extent that people will take the path of least resistance and do what they know when they can, yes, but I think that they still have paralells to draw when they hit brick walls. On the other hand, people who were more free might have a better understanding of what is going on, but if they can't do the integrals that they have to do, their creativity has failed them.

It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Yes, if you give someone a hammer they might try to treat everything as a nail, but if you only give someone the tools to make new tools, there are many things they will do slower, and still some things not at all. Which is better depends on what you are doing. If you are tasked with building a good engineer, though, you have a better chance of making him good enough if you give him enough tools to do what he needs to do.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Mycroft_VIII]

I'm actually at my best under pressure, provided I know enough of the parameters. Whithout enough experience however I have issues. With too much time I start thinking about to many what-if's and borrowing trouble and nit picking my own decisions.
I know exactly what you mean about how others think being hard to deal with. In area's where I know what I'm doing and the right thing needs to be done NOW I find I have little patience for 'idiots'. I put that in quotes because they're not really idiots(at least usually not), they just don't think like I do and the conflict drives me nuts. I see with crystal clarity the 'right' way to fix something and start to do so, and usually half way through someone tries to push me in a different direction. It's really hard, not to mention frustrating, to explain things that took years of experience to put together into an almost instinctive gestalt when time is short.

Mycroft

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[mikael_j]

One reason I hate "word problems" is because I had a math prof that used to turn them into reading comprehension tests, we actually had a final where the last question was later disregarded during grading due to almost all students misinterpreting it, me included. And this was what he was trying to do, there was nothing about this that tested your math skills, it was about understanding weird grammar and text formatting (the question that was disregarded had odd punctuation which made most people think he missed a comma but if you re-read it a couple of times it became obvious he meant something completely differen...)

/Mikael

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Alan Partridge]

So George Bush REALLY IS a good candidate for president of the US, then?

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[batemanm]

...that pressure causes smart people to think "Oh no, I can't screw up".

No it talks about high working-memory capacity and says nothing about smart people. The title of the submitted article is a little misleading. This appears to be the original article, while here is some of the other work, includes sports performance as well maths.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[virtualXTC]

We need to think outside of a box of engineers: Who says that "individuals with high working-memory capacity" are smart? I know a lot of people that can memorize just about anything, it doesn't mean they can apply that knowledge (unlike a good engineer). People who can easily memorize aren't necessarily any smarter than those that can't. Most physicists I know would rather derive everything than memorize it - that's true intelligence!

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[stormi]

i agree completely with these ideas of creativity. i'm only in 12th grade right now, but last year i had trig and the year before alg ii and i'll admit that i had to have tutors the whole time to make it through that hell. my teacher was known for being impossibly difficult.... we ALL had tutors in that class, and even then some people didn't make it, and here we thought we were stupid....

that is, until i found Daryl and he told me that my teacher was teaching everything in the wrong order first of all, and that he wasn't teaching me how to even approach problems. i realized the problem more when we did word problems. daryl taught me how to think of those creatively from the start and just jot down different ideas and try things. i solved each one in a different way, just because.... but in class, everyone else stuck to the rigid little charts we'd been taught, and tried to force the problem to work that way. it's no wonder i scored higher.

i kind of quit w/ the whole math end of things for now, but when ben was teaching me kinematics, i immediately started approaching the problems how daryl taught me (or... didn't teach me.... just creative ideas jotted down to think about)... but the only time i use my teacher's 'ideas' about things are when i help my friend do her trig homework, and i think things like 'oh, everyone got THAT problem wrong and he wants u to do this....' the only thing that guy was useful for was for passing his own class

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

except for Stanford where it would be whatever comes after an 'A+'.

Expressed as a percentage that would be 115%, which will be counted towards your final GPA.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[SAPHRguru]

I know exactly what you mean
When I was in elementary (primary) school and learning times tables... I recall being penalized for not working 24 x 6 longhand... (i.e. 6 x 4 + 10 x 6 x 2)
I recognized that this was identical to 12 x 12 (simple factoring - although I didn't know the name of this at the time)
My teacher scored me zero for the entire test- and accused me of cheating!...(how could a child just *know* the answer to that difficult problem)!

As you can see this scarred me for life...!

I also encountered the same challenges in University -- which eventually led to me failing the 'rote learning math exam' too many times... thus expelling me from college just when I was really enjoying the other learning experiences... and the opportunities to interact with so many other disciplines....

For a while after college, I considered this to be 'my fault'... and could easily have dropped out completely...
Instead - I was discovered by my first mentor... and learned that I was in fact creative, innovative, smart, and valuable...
Since then, I've grown in confidence, skill and expertise... while retaining my innate 'intelligence

I am considered an innovator, a troubleshooter, and a problem solver by everyone with whom I've since worked...(including a significant chunk of the FOrtune 100...)


A bonus is that I earn significantly more now that I ever thought would be possible for someone who 'failed' college...

side note: my favorite experience was leading and delivering a seminar on client management and project delivery to a bunch of ivy-league MBAs... All were surprised at my lack of credentials... luckily they only found out at the end (after theyad written their seminar appraisals!)

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[tootlemonde]

Unfortunately, creativity is not something that can be easily taught...

In a recent article, Mandelbrot shows three common techniques that have kept him creative even today when he's nearly 80:

1. I always saw a close kinship between the needs of "pure" mathematics and a certain hero of Greek mythology, Antaeus. The son of Earth, he had to touch the ground every so often in order to reestablish contact with his Mother; otherwise his strength waned. To strangle him, Hercules simply held him off the ground. Back to mathematics. Separation from any down-to-earth input could safely be complete for long periods -- but not forever.
2. A recent, important turn in my life occurred when I realized that something that I have long been stating in footnotes should be put on the marquee. I have engaged myself, without realizing it, in undertaking a theory of roughness.
3. To give an example, let me return to the stock market and the weather. It turns out ... that the techniques I developed for studying turbulence -- like weather -- also apply to the stock market.

Mandelbrot's techniques can be roughly sumarized as (1) periodically return to basic principles or direct observation; (2) pay closer attention to obscure or peripheral phenomenon; and (3) apply techniques from apparently unrelated disciplines.

I suspect that part of the problem isn't that creativity is hard to teach but that it isn't taught at all. Creativity might be like any other technique. If you know it, you use it.

I wonder if the missing ingredient in creativity is arrogance, a quality much on display in Mandelbrot's article. Creative people think their rightful place is standing on the shoulders of giants. They've been told the view is better up there.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Durzel]

I can think outside the square just fine, it's that damned box I have trouble with.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Taladar]

That is one of the things with our (german) education system that gets me everytime when tests come up. I can't memorize details because in the years before college when I learned half a dozen programming languages and lots of other stuff on my own I only learned the basic structures knowing the details were only one search in google away. Tests create a totally artificial environment for todays standards where you can use no written material at all and have to memorize all that detail bullshit you forget a few weeks later anyway since you don't use it.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[JollyFinn]

You made misconception of working memory and memorizing things.
Working memory is tiny little cache that fits 7+-2 items, thats the memory people use to operate things. Its not a permanent storage its few registers to keep few things in your conciusness, for quick recovery.
However that working memory can fit ANYSIZED objects there. So with experience on certain subject you start considering bigger compounds as single object, and with that you can fit bigger things in your working memory.
Consider you have L1cache, RAM and DISK. L1cache is working memory that well you erase all the time, when you operate on things, and it lasts few seconds, RAM is short term memory that holds for half hour or something similar [Or less my disk isn't error free], and long term memory is disk where people do MEMORIZE things.

Smart people have good working memory and short time memory while knowledgeable people have written lots of stuff to their permanent storage.

Now I have good working memory and reasonable RAM but my disk has lots of bad sectors, and error correction coprocessor that might retrieve the data in a few hours too late...

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Illserve]

While it can be true since it's posted on the internet, personally I believe they

Whew, I'll toss out the opinion of someone who's just spent the last year collecting data, analyzing the results, and submitting them to Psych Science because a /. poster disagrees.

Me, I'm one of those HWM people, and I fall to absolute pieces under pressure. I suspect you are as well, and your ego just took a bump from this paper.

As a result you get defensive, and rather than accept that there might be some validity in this work, you cop an elitist attitude, shitting on those LWM's. "They're mindless robots, they just follow the rules. Me, I'm better, but I need time to think outside the box".

Let me defuse your ego trip, he's talking about working memory capacity, not "smart". There is a correlation, but it's not that LWM's are less intelligent, they have just less workspace to sketch on. It's like working on a 640x480 screen instead of a 1024x768.

These people are no more or less likely to "think outside the box". They just have less room in their heads to worry about things, so they tend not to.

You elitism

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[HerbieStone]

I have seen something related. I work with lots of engineers. Most want to be told what to do. They seem to want to put a high level of thinking on a very focused task. When the thinking becomes broad, they tend shy away.

I'm a computer engineer. I a did a manager course 2 years ago. It was pretty hard to get into the mind of how a manager solves a problem with almost no information.
On one exercice we had to estimate the development time of a system with only a few informations and a lot of confusing cruft. I thought it was impossible to do, there were too many uncertainities. But my colleagues which allready did some project managment just looked at the specs said something like "not under a 3 months". I asked him how he could be certain. He said he wasn't certain, but he managed a similar project and could derive from it. He could even estimate how far his estimation could be off. The course went on for a year and at the end I understood that thinking broad is learnable as much as focusing on a single problem and digging in deep.
One just needs to understand that broad thinking isn't the same as deep thinking. And that both needs to be learned and exerciced.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

But you still need the memory to remember how to do whatever it is you're going to do to solve the problem at hand. :)

Another point is that the article mentioned short-term memory, and the ability to remember the different parts of a problem you're solving. That's a completely different thing to simply memorising something (which is more long-term memory), and is helpful for solving problems quickly. For example, I usually solve relatively simple mathematical problems mentally, rather than using a calculator (like most of my mates), and that involves remembering the result of each step along the way to the solution: if you forget one intermediate result, you'll get the wrong overall result. For more complex problems, I write a few things down from time to time, and/or use a calculator, but if I could remember all the details, I wouldn't have to use either.

Long-term memory is also helpful in terms of remembering the process for solving things, but I've never been able to learn something comfortably without understanding it. When someone tells me to memorise something I don't understand, I get so frustrated at not understanding it that I become incapable of using it in a useful way. On the other hand, once I understand it, I don't really need to memorise it, since I can reason what to do.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[TykeClone]

if I still see someone using Win 1.0 I know for sure that he is NOT smart (unless of course he has a 8086 or 286 based system :) )

But think of how fast it would run on modern hardware!

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

You have described the makings of a beautiful partnership, where one person possesses great technical skills and the other possesses great flexibility.

You use the example of integrals. I can't do calculus to save my life, but I understand the kind of information that integrals give. Typically when I run up against a problem that Mathematica and I cannot solve, I find my friend, who is a technician about all things calculus, and things get worked out. He's happy to help, because in return, he may come to me whenever he gets stuck on a programming project, and I'm usually able to see end-runs around the problem at hand.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[nazsco]

True.

Bertrand Russel wrote an article about humans vs ants where he outlines that todays society creates harmony trhu standardization and that it's not 100% good since it cuts down the number of people that will inovate.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

I work with lots of engineers. Most want to be told what to do. They seem to want to put a high level of thinking on a very focused task. When the thinking becomes broad, they tend shy away.

Null statement! This is not indicative of the engineers I have worked with (or me personally for that matter).. Maybe you should try working with a better class of engineers?

In my experience with engineering, the more you can work _without_ information the more valuable you are.

Nonsense! Without enough information, you cannot be sure of solving the problem!

Case in point:

I write firmware for a living. My most recent job was maintaining a piece of code written by someone else before I joined the company. In order to fix one feature of the product, I designed a piece of test equipment and found that it did NOT do what it was designed to do.

I asked my boss for details on what the feature was actually supposed to accomplish. He kept telling me that I didn't need to know that, he had already decided what it should do, just fix the code to do that.

When he finally relented and showed me data that described what it should do, it took me about 1/2 hour and 2 test cases to show that the original design couldn't do what was required!

Now, I could have fixed the original algorithm to do what it was originally designed to do. Only the fact that I was reassessing the original algorithm and looking at (perhaps) alternate ways of doing it led me to question the assumptions that the original algorithm was based on. My boss's approach (sounds like yours) that I didn't need to know that, was patently false! My approach (get all the information about the required result) led to a design that was proven, in a real-world test some 6 months later, to do exactly what the customer required!

Note that this example directly contradicts your earlier statement, also: ...engineers. Most want to be told what to do. They seem to want to put a high level of thinking on a very focused task. When the thinking becomes broad, they tend shy away.

But engineers always want to get all the information before they begin...
This is my (so take it with a grain of salt) fundamental rule of engineering projects, formulated after some 30 years of working on them:

Nobody ever screwed up by knowing too much. Many, many people have screwed up by knowing too little!

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

When I have to get something done I rather have strict guidelines then trying to guess what the intent is. Strict guidelines usualy still allow creative solutions and even encourage them by not making you guess the result before making it there.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[gr8_phk]

Most engineers and engineering professors are "left-brained". I listened to a lecture once from a guy who studied this (he was after a position at our school). He said the few right-brainers (creative people) who went into engineering shifted to a more left-brained way of thinking by graduation. I am a right-brainer and was fortunate enough to have taken a test early on and can confirm this - I went back and took it again. He also said the right-brainers have a tendancy to work as an engineer for a few years, and then give it up entirely and do something completely different. I have often been temped to do exactly that. I'm not convinced the education shifts you from right to left, it may just improve your ability to think in a more structured way without reducing creativity. He didn't address that issue, but I don't think college reduced my creativity too much even though my test score shifted closer to center on the test.

Unfortunately engineering school tends to drive away the creative people.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[karnal]

On the other hand, less smart people, like those who upgrade from Windows 1.0 to Windows Longhorn religously because MS told them so

How does someone following an upgrade path make someone less smart?

Sure, it might make them less smart about computers. But computers aren't everything.... A friend's father is probably one of the smartest people I know, and that is not because he's "book" smart, but he's very smart about how to live... whether it be his personal relationships or money etc.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[fatmanone]

You must be refering to people who rather analyze and deduct information rather than to people who store and play it back.

That is, there are AAAA students that have an magnific memory skill, but that's all they can do, store.
They rarely really analyse the data they have in order to get an useful item out of it.

On the other hand you have the D student, who can't memorize and usually asks the "WHY TF should I do these?" question.
This one is able to deduct a theorem out of the data he's got peeking over the shoulder of the neighbour;

And there are the geniuses which have a better balance between storing and analysing data.

Now, about what type of brain are we talking here?

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[kill -9 $$]

I had a linear algebra teacher who did the same exact thing. I'd dread his exams before hand because you knew it was going to be stuff that you couldn't really study for. All you could do is understand the concepts best you could and go in and engage the gray matter.

At the same time it was the most fulfilling experience cause when you got done with that exam you felt like you effectively doubled your knowledge on the subject, saw new ways to apply the concepts, and/or just knew you had the stuff down cold.

Everybody hated him as a teacher, I never took another math class without him, unless it was a subject he just didn't teach.

That was the only professor I ever found who had a knack for writing exams like that, I wish more could even though they do stress you out a bit.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point being made was people doing something because they're told, not because they believe they should. Upgrading to WinXP from Win 1.0 because it's faster/more secure/less unreliable/whatever, (although let's not go into exactly how much of a fallacy each of those statements is here) that's one thing. But if you upgrade because "nice Mr Gates" told you so, then you're probably going to believe that gays are going to hell because some book that's supposedly written by God says he hates them.

That's the difference. Following rules because you agree with them = smart. Following rules because you're told to = sheep.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[shaka999]

Disclaimer, I'm an engineer but I think your post couldn't be farther from what I've seen in my 12 year career.

Engineers are practical. We want to know details because we know that is where the problems are going to be encountered.

When we get into meetings with marketing and they want to think "broad" it usually means they want to skip over how things like physics, budgets, man power, ip, software needs, ...

When managment comes and asks us to do something and we ask for clarification it because the last time they asked us to do this we came up with a great solution but it wasn't what management really wanted. Its much easier to break something down then come up with a new approach yourself.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Zebra_X]

You've missed the boat my friend.

While it can be true since it's posted on the internet

It's not posted on the internet. This article is being published in this week's issue of Psychological Science.

choke when they're required to do things under a strict guideline, which restricts them from thinking outside the square

This is nonsense. In fact, the article states that HWM individuals "do worse on simple exams than when allowed to work with no constraints" That is "no contraints" not "overly constrained".

Maybe you missed the article: The hypothesis tested was "People with HWM perform worse in situations in which there is the perception that there is increased pressure." They found that this was true. The tests have nothing to do with upgrading software, or following rules or "the man" getting smart people down.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[iamwahoo2]

Please help me understand how "thinking outside the square" is of any use in rudimentary math problems such as long-division? Did ANYBODY read the article? All smart people do not have HWM. It is only one type of smart person. Usually the type of person that is good at reading something quickly and comprehending it all.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[karnal]

I guess my counter-point to that is that in some aspects of life, people have to "follow rules because they're told to". Not everybody on this earth can be a jack of all trades... :)

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[reallyrandy]

This is especially true with musicians. I am self-taught and can read music very slowly, but mainly focus on writing original pieces. When I have played with classically trained musicians, they just stare at me and wait for me to tell them what to do: they cannot improvise.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[SpaceLifeForm]

Sometimes it's better to swap and get the task done than to have the OOM killer prematurely kick in.

Some people have their VM tuned good, some do not.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Reziac]

When people ask me why I left college when I did, my response has always been, "My brain had a disk-full error". :)

[blink] That's it! I need to reformat my brain!!

[thinking] Maybe I should start by writing zeros to its boot sector...

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[JollyFinn]

One thing for you to know, is that there is no such thing as disk-full error in real life. Only problems with putting stuff in memory, and retrieving it. One condition that might be mistaken is having a bad diet and stuffing too much information at one time, so you get short time information overload, when your brain needs more nutritions in short period of time than it can get.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[donothingsuccessfull]

Working memory is tiny little cache that fits 7+-2 items
I have a working memory of 2+or-7 items.
Now what were you just going to do?

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to keep my smart employees under pressure, it keeps them busy while I'm banging the secretary. It's amusing to see those geniuses work so hard on a fake project I made up on the spot, with idiots getting in his way. Then all their clever efforts go down the trash, poor nerds, cos they don't realize the company actually makes money from drug smuggling and tax evasion.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

And it get worst if the target is shooting back at you.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Reziac]

Really? Hmm. Maybe my brain just needed repartitioning, or a data refresh. I did try eating an Apple, but it just gave me indigestion. ;)

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but any mathematicians who claim he can apply techniques to the stock market is mentally ill. Stock market is about psychology, not mathematics.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Davoid]

Hmmm... I remember a few questions from my calculus exams:

1. What is the area of the sky?

2. Derive the mathematical relationship between the notes of the musical scale.

There were 13 other questions like this on the exam.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square

[Mycroft_VIII]

I think you just described my main method for doing math, reduce to simpler problems and solve. Of course what may be simpler for me isn't for others, but most people don't even think to do it that way.
Take counting more than a few coins of some denomination. I count how many coins then convert to dollars and cents. Everyone else I've ever seen count coins tries to count in terms of the coins value tracking exact amount as they go. If I get interupted in the middle all I have to remember is ONE simple number (ie 32 or 16) whereas anyone else has to try and remember a dollar and cents amount (ie $1.60 or $.80 if it's nickles). Plust you know how fast you count the number of a coin type if your only worried about the value of one coin AFTER you know how many you got. I can count about 3 times faster and be more often right with my total. And that's just coins.
Some people think I'm some sort of low level math wiz (I don't do instant answers to square roots thank you!). I try explaining it to them but thier eyes just glaze over and they go back to 1,2,3....20 ONE dollar 1,2,3...20 TWO dollar.
I'm fairly good at the troubleshooting and problem solving in the short term just so so for long term so I usually break down a problem into the short term components. Saddly all to often 'inovator' == 'troublemaker' or 'boatrocker'.

Mycroft

So THAT must be

[Anonymous Coward]

So THAT must be why I do so poorly with work, school, and my private life!

Re:So THAT must be

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Ah...

[Kaihaku]

Interesting, I wonder if I can argue that point to my professors after a timed exam.

Is this a veiled attempt...

[daveschroeder]

...for people who think of themselves as "geeks" to be able to justify why they fuck up under pressure?

I hope not.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am inclined to agree. Screwing up in an examination has a lot more to do with confidence. If you are confident you will do well, you have nothing to worry about. If you are confident you will mess up, you have nothing to worry about anyway.

I would be interested to see what was the definition of "high-working memory" people and "low-memory working". In any case, what does memory have anything to do with smartness anyway?

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[momerath2003]

Yes. Yes, it is.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Madcapjack]

And what exactly does this say about NASA's f*ups?

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[nomadic]

Actually it seems to take away any justification. It wasn't bad luck, you weren't distracted, it wasn't just a bad day, you people just really suck at this. And by you people I'm including myself, btw.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's just that the higher you are, the farther you fall.

Gifted people are much more likely to suffer from underachivement problems than other people, usually due to perfectionism, social anxiety issues, etc.

Personally, I suffer from severe perfectionism. Many people wish they were perfectionists. They're always perceived as the people who excel and do whatever it takes to complete something to the best of the ability. That image is entirely false. Perfectionism is the leading cause of gifted underachivement in academics (and, I would assume, "real world" achievement).

Try to imagine it like this. You receive a homework assignment from a teacher (if you're an employed adult, replace it with a project from a manager or something -.-). You dread doing it, so you procrastinate. That's no big deal, of course. Most people procrastinate. But then you start working. Rather than concentrate on the big picture - getting a good grade, getting the job done, whatever - you focus on the little things. Is this sentence typed correctly? Is that the right form of this? What if people think this is stupid? You get confused; you have no idea what you are doing anymore. You finally dredge through it, and rather than feel accomplishment, you feel dread. Afterall, it will be graded and judged. What if it isn't good enough? People will think you're stupid? For a perfectionist, that's a terrible feeling. It's one emotional drain after another.

While this isn't directly related to the article, there are some connections. Personally, it has ruined my life. Nothing can make you feel good about yourself. I received a 1580 "equivalent" on my PSAT's last year. Did I feel happy about it? No. I felt so incompetent for missing that math problem, and so amazingly stupid for not getting that reading comprehension question rated as "medium" right.

I'm failing 5 out of 6 of my classes right now, basically assuring that any hopes of a succesful life is ruined. It's a great feeling.

Sorry, it's just that your post angered me a little bit. Didn't mean to rant. -.-

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're a moron with severe learning disabilities. They have special classes for you, but you'll have to sit around with other kids with Down's syndrome at worst and ADHD at best.

Seriously. If you are smart, don't make excuses and shut the fuck up and do what you need to do. If you are smart, you realize that to win, you need to play the game. You can win the game if you play it, and the object is to eventually come to the point where you are writing the rules. If you are smart, you can do it.

If you are a whiny moron, you can talk about how hard you work to make each sentence perfect while throwing away your efforts. That's okay too, but don't be surprised if you are treated like a special ed kid too.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you get your inspiration for this post by reading magazines that have steroid advertisements every other page?

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonono... You see, it's the blow that's responsible for GWB's fuckups.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry. That did come off as a bit whiney.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[shanen]

No, the dumb people like Dubya still make bad decisions. It's just that pressure isn't the reason. I guess it's called paralysis by analysis, but not a problem when you're just a puppet.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

after a cursory investigation i found 3 grammatical errors in your post. there are probably more. have fun.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

I found several grammatical errors in your post. Do you own a fucking shift key?

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[pipingguy]

In any complicated thinking environment, putting someone "on the spot" while being observed by peers/"superiors" is a stressful situation for the mark. Such tactics are often used by those seeking to demonstrate dominance and leadership skills while conveniently ignoring the actual complexity of the problem at hand. Remember, collective IQ is generally not the sum of all the brains in the room - it often declines as sociological theory kicks in.

Individuals that deal with complicated problems often suffer from loss of recent recall (maybe think accessing a HDD rather than RAM), especially if they jump around mentally on different subjects in their regular work. But, since the theatre is designed for RIGHT NOW responses, there's a latency problem that doesn't look too good if one has to spend 10 or 20 seconds accessing the mental hard drive.

In good engineering (I.E., "real" engineering with a few hundred years' experience of dealing with ideas as opposed to "software" engineering) organizations that are not too heavy with the superficial politics and jockeying for status phenomenon you will see a lot of patience, reflection and re-reflection on ideas generated or critiqued in a "pressure" situation.

Sorry, got carried away and maybe missed the original point.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop reading and posting so much on slashdot. Spend more time reading your books.

The most important thing anybody can learn is how to learn. Find somebody to teach you how to learn.

Again, stay away from sites like slashdot.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but i am not a fucking perfectionist so i don't give fuck.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[RocketRainbow]

There are some rude anonymous replies to the parent comment and I'd like to set the record straight. Perfectionism comes with pressure to achieve - it's not automatically a trait that comes with intelligence, it appears when a person judges his or her self worth by what is achieved. The perfectionist feels like "not a real person" and feels a constant need to prove himself or herself.

For many young women, this means a possibly fatal eating disorder. The parent poster is failing classes and generally ensuring an unhappy life. Psychologists can help with this problem. There are psychologists that specialize in eating disorders who would find this sort of thing quite familiar. Also, many universities have counselling centres or psychologists in the area who are familiar with student issues.

Perfectionism is usually a problem for young people, but if you are a grown-up who is currently in a downward spiral because of perfectionism, you may be able to find someone by asking around in the abovementioned places, or by asking your doctor.

The other problem mentioned was performance anxiety. Anxious disorders can be treated with drugs (from a psychiatrist, not your personal physician) but you should also undergo some form of psychoanalysis or counselling to try and get off the drugs. If anxiety is left untreated it can turn into panic and get you hospitalized thinking that you are dying. Not my idea of a good Saturday afternoon.

Geeks unite, stand up for your health!

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[bar-agent]

Many people wish they were perfectionists.

I sure as hell don't. There are several mottos I live by. One of them is "Perfect is the enemy of Good." What this means is, don't go for perfection, you won't achieve it and you'll screw up something else--a deadline or something--by trying. Make it good. Don't try to make it perfect.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[c4ffeine]

Amazing, I didn't actually expect to run into someone else like that. I've had a problem similar to that ever since I started going to school (I was homeschooled for a while, so I guess that's why I didn't see it earlier). I used to enjoy doing schoolwork; now I loathe it. It's come to the point where it's not really worth it to me to do all of the work to the expected level for an A. I've pretty much given up bothering to do most assignments because, when I do, I do it to my satisfaction and go well above the expected level and still get the same grade as someone who BSed well enough for a 91%. I'm only failing 3-4 classes at the moment, but that's because that's all that I'm taking with my screwed up schedule.

I've tried to explain this to many people, including my parents and 2 physcologists, but they generally view it as "just an excuse" and refuse to listen, let alone actually try to understand it. (They ultimately decided that I was depressed, which is expected when you've just failed 3 courses junior year in high school and are about to be expelled). So, while I'm not really surprised by grandparent, I still find it pretty sad that most people don't see that perfectionists are screwed over because they want to do something properly.

I wonder how many other /.ers have this problem as well. It can't be that rare; I know one or two others with similar problems.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[localman]

I'm sure you know that perfection isn't necessary for success. But here's my story:

I wasn't really a perfectionist. I flunked a lot of classes, dropped out of high school, skipped college, worked at taco bell, and a bunch of other crap jobs. Basically, by some people's standards you could say that "any hope of a succesful life was ruined".

Today (twelve years later) I'm a very successful director of development at a very successful company. I'm married to a wonderful, beautiful woman, and live a good life.

So don't take any failure too seriously. Just keep at it and you'll work it out over time.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Mycroft_VIII]

I always did well on tests. For one thing I was always told I was smart and didn't worry about it, and later when I could have worried I was used to doing good and still later I didn't particularly care that much anyway.

Mycroft

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[chthon]

I sympathise with you, I found out long ago that I have the same problem. I am now 38, and have my programming job, but I realise that I could have done much better.

There is no one who could help me, so I had to help myself. What I am constantly trying to do is rebuild myself, by saying that what needs to be done should be done, and by trying to concentrate on the tasks to be done.

It is not easy, but I am making progress.

The best thing you can do is try to find a coach, someone who helps you focus and set your priorities. This must be someone you trust and can talk to unrestricted. I found out that talking about the current problem at hand does help, it makes you focus on the global picture.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[halleluja]

Sucks. I'm in the exact position right now, though I think I'm a lot less smarter. Anyway, there's more to a life than a career, or so I've been told.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've sort of had the same problem, but it's more a matter of personal satisfaction than an effort/benefit analysis. E.g. I recently handed in an optional (but recommended) paper in one of my courses (I'm at university), and having spent days writing it before handing it in, I still wasn't satisfied, so continued to work on it for a few days afterwards (even though the lecturer never saw the final version, I felt compelled to finish it to my satisfaction).

I'm passing with good marks in all my classes, so I haven't got much to complain about, but I know I could be getting better marks overall if I didn't focus on completing some things to perfection, and then having to skip other things altogether. At least university is more flexible than secondary school, so skipping boring assignments doesn't directly impact marks (but does reduce the probability of doing well on the associated exams/papers).

At the end of the day, I just have a lot of trouble putting my name on something I consider to be mediocre. I want everything I do to be first rate, and if it isn't, it annoys me to no end that I'm representing myself through a mediocre paper/exam.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[MissTuxie]

Oh god, I felt so sad right now... you were talking about the PSAT score and I remembered when I took my TOEFL exam (Test of English as a Foreign Language). The best you can do in the computer test is 300 points for the test part and 6 on the essay. I got 270/5.5.

May sound like a silly example for english speakers, but it was THE test for me. And that grade should be good enough, given I've never studied english, but I kept feeling sad about the .5 I didn't score and wondering WTF I did wrong. Incompetent came to my mind a few times and I still want to take it again... :-(

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[fearofcarpet]

Wow... Reading these posts (especially under this parent) is like a window into big-brained people's insecurities. Let's face it, you're only as smart as people perceive you to be. Look at me, I'm an idiot, but people ask me for my opinion constantly. Why? Because I'm the only moron dumb enough to offer one (though often when it ISN'T wanted). Does that make me smart? Hell no. Does that make me successful? Aparently yes.

Reading about everyone insecurities and rationalizations for why apparently dumber-than-you people are doing better on homework/tests (I'm a perfectionist comes to mind) takes me back... I could never figure out why all those suck-up, idiot, rule-following, conformist jack-asses were doing better in school, getting big fat scholarships, and going to fancy colleges while I was being groomed over for pumping gas because I smoked pot, cut classes and liked run-on sentences. What was my excuse... Oh yeah, "I wasn't being challenged enough" (I'm also a little dyslexic so exuse any type-o's). Turns out I'm just lazy and stubborn. Or am I? Shit, I don't know anymore because society keeps rewarding me for being an idiot. I'm just waiting for the rug to get pulled out from underneith me.

Anyway, if you're self-aware enough to make excuses for failure and motivated enough to keep trying, then you're probably smart... And if you're posting those feelings here, a geek too. I think this topic touched a nerve because yes, this kind of stuff is just the kind of rationalization for failure big-brained insecure nerds need to motivate us (oops I said us!) to keep trying. Just read the study, empathize with your fellow geeks, light some candles and pray to the poster of Bill Gates.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Headw1nd]

I know several individuals with prefectionist tendancies who migrated on to full blown panic attacks in college. It really is no joke.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Raven_Stark]

I'm failing 5 out of 6 of my classes right now, basically assuring that any hopes of a successful life is ruined. It's a great feeling.

I went through a similar thing. In class, I had trouble with the professors' foreign accents and soon the pressure to understand their words made it impossible to understand anything they said. Our Thermodynamics textbooks were late to arrive but the professor started throwing exams at us and aggressively questioning us in class. If you were wrong or not entirely right, he'd really humiliate and dress you down in front of 200 others for being stupid and lazy. I choked and never unchoked. The pressure spread to test taking, which had never been a problem for me. My fear of failure got to the point I stopped attending classes and taking exams. I even got to the point that I'd get all wound up worrying that I'd fail to understand the textbook which resulted in me obsessively reading the same paragraph for hours on end while not comprehending a word of it. In short, I made myself a wee bit mad. Eventually, I gave up on college and became a loser.

If you find a fix, please let me know. I suspect if you have only recently gotten into the pattern of actually failing classes from the perfectionism thing, it may be a good idea to take off a year from college. I kept forcing myself not to give up and I only managed to reinforce the behavior to the point it seems to be impossible to undo. (Well that, and eventually used up all my second chances with the administration.) Go bum around in another country for a while, have a lot of sex, find yourself and that kind of thing. It is what I wish I would have done.

I'd suggest staying away from shrinks since they only made my problem much worse. Still, I hear they seem to help some people .

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Headw1nd]

I hope you read this reply, because I've suffered from much the same problem, and I'd like to throw in my two cents.

First, prefectionism really is a problem. It leads to your life being agonizing, and is actually counterproductive in terms of achievement and productivity. You realize this, which is a good start. The most difficult thing about fixing it is a belief that you need to do it all by yourself. You are not perfect, nor are you going to be. You are not self-sufficient. As a perfectionist, you undoubtably believe that if you can't solve your problems by yourself, you are not worthy of a solution. This is not true.

If I had to give practical advice for your schoolwork, I'd say this, start early, and plan less. I'm sure as soon as you get an assignment you start thinking in grandiose terms- this is a setup. Start the assignment that night, don't give yourself time to make it bigger than it needs to be. My school career was littered with half-finished masterpieces.

Another suggestion, find something you'd like to be jugded on beside academics. Having an identity beyond being smart is important, and not just as a fallback plan. Untie your self worth from achievement. It does wonders for both.

Oh, and stop apologizing. Don't worry that someone might percieve you as ranting/whining/whatever. After all, you're not perfect.

Good luck.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but as a perfectionist myself, it sounds more like you just haven't gotten a "real world" grip on it yet.

There's a place to let it show. There's also a place to, however hard it might be, bury it and just get the job done. For example, if you're solving a word math problem. Do you have to have perfect sentence structure when giving your answer? No, as long as your answer to the math problem is clear, no.

Another thing to do is what you should have been taught in the first place. You shouldn't necessarily do one small peice of a project and analize it to death. You need to take a step back, make your rough draft(s), THEN come back and look at it as a whole. Every decent sized project has multiple facets and each relate to the other.

And lastly, sometimes you have to just learn to say "f--- it". If you don't, you'll end up with stress levels so high you'll die by the age of 35.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[mutterc]

Some "gifted kids" deal with your sort of issues by simply doing things that make them look smart, but aren't hard. That's one of the advantages I have now in having a non-technical manager - some things that are pretty easy for geeks seem like genius to them.

I don't know what the solution for this kind of motivation-drain is. I'm a former genius, like yourself, and got into a fairly typical disillusioned-underachievement pattern in my mid-twenties or so, as life experience made it apparent to me that hard work and ability don't count for a damn thing. (Ask some slashdotters! Try to get a job you'd be able to do easily, but haven't done already for 5 years!)

Now I'm 31, just coasting on raw ability, managing not to get fired, and that'll work OK until the last job I have experience in moves offshore. Then I get the fun of trying to "break into" the electrician's trade with no experience, or something like that. It would be nice if I could work up to my potential, but why?

High school wasn't so bad for me, though (despite the inevitable ostracism, and, in a rural school, no other geeks). One thing that helped was to position myself second in many things (e.g. I ended up salutatorian rather than valedictorian). That removes an immense amount of pressure, while not squandering too much potential. Sometimes it's a hard lesson that there's always someone "better" than you (whatever metric / area you choose), but once you internalize that, everything's easier. It's impossible to be the "best" at everything, and essentially impossible to be the "best" at anything, given wide a wide enough field of competition (in more and more fields these days, the competition is global).

I tried a book recently, "Smart Boys" by Barbara Kerr, wondering if it had some answers. It didn't for me (lack of "manliness" didn't cause me any more problems than anything else), but might for others in similar situations. She did a "Smart Girls" as well (first, in fact).

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[ponos]

While this isn't directly related to the article, there are some connections. Personally, it has ruined my life. Nothing can make you feel good about yourself. I received a 1580 "equivalent" on my PSAT's last year. Did I feel happy about it? No. I felt so incompetent for missing that math problem, and so amazingly stupid for not getting that reading comprehension question rated as "medium" right. I'm failing 5 out of 6 of my classes right now, basically assuring that any hopes of a succesful life is ruined. It's a great feeling.

Well, this fulfills several criteria for the diagnosis of a psychiatric ailment. A chronic behaviour of this type would be compatible with an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, although it is very hard to make educated guesses without a thorough interview. I would encourage you to seek professional help because (a) you are obviously distressed and (b) you have objective difficulties in work.

P.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[danila]

Check out Overcoming Procrastination by Steve Pavlina. It's a nice article (the guy is a shareware developer-turned-motivational speaker) and it gives a very simple solution, which can be surprisingly effective. Set a timer and just work 30 minutes on the task. Work on any aspect of it, do whatever you can/like/want, but work on this task. After 30 minutes go eat a cookie. Repeat. Do it 10 times and you've just spent 5 hours on the task, which was probably enough to do a lot of progress.

I came to realise recently how horrible it is to be a perfectionist. I can at least feel happy that I don't hate myself for not being 100% perfect, but because of it I dropped out of a M.Sc. program - I just couldn't force myself to do crappy projects, to go to exams not knowing the subject perfectly, etc. So I didn't go to exams and didn't finish the projects. Meanwhile, the rest of the group (95% of whom were much less capable than I was) didn't have any problem going to the exam and trying to fake knowing the subject and making some crap that often passed for a project.

It can be really sad. I can be really productive as a perfectionist, but not all tasks/projects are equally suitable. There are many things I just can't force myself to work on.

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Many people wish they were perfectionists.

Ouch, that's even worse. Wishing to be perfectionist? ;-)
--
By the way, I'd be angrier over a 1580 if I had one than what I actually got (1520): I'd feel like I was capable of a 1600 and I barely missed it. Now I feel like I'm capable of a 1600 but I needed a lot more work on it. Yet in another sense, I'd of course be happier if I had a 1580 instead....

which of course means I'll be unhappy with anything other than a 1600, and I'll be unhappy if it's a rounded 1600 (I think you're allowed to miss one verbal). So I sympathize completely.

Although you ought to do something about those classes. I hope your teachers know about your PSAT score; explain your problem, ask nicely, and they ought to understand that someone as smart as you shouldn't be failing. They'll help you somehow, if you ask. Perhaps they don't know you have a problem, and think that you're showing your true ability in class?

Re:Is this a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

After 30 minutes go eat a cookie. Repeat. Do it 10 times and you've ...

Just added 8 pounds to your svelte figure! :)

I read something about it

[CrankyFool]

I remember seeing something like this on some ... page ... let's see if I can find it ... God damnit, why is it so hard to find these pages when I'm in a hurry ?! I hate my laptop, I hate my keyboard, and I HATE MY LIFE!!! ARGH!!

Re:I read something about it

[clem]

Get a grip, man. First post isn't the end-all and be-all of life.

This is true for my girlfriend..

[gh5046]

She's one smart woman, but when it comes to tests (especially ones that are timed) she does horribly. Now I have some backing to dispute her calling herself stupid.

Re:This is true for my girlfriend..

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep letting her call herself stupid, you call her stupid too, and in the end you can end up with someone who can't emotionally remove themselves from you and is willing to do whatever perverted deviant act you wish.

Don't knock that. Love is biological and only lasts a short time. Might as well have someone who is willing to be your sex slave because of her own low-self esteem than to try to haggle with some smart girl.

Keep the smart girls on the side. My experience shows that they'd rather be having sex free of commitment just as much as us guys.

In short: broken, sex slave at home; smart girl for sex outside.

Re:This is true for my girlfriend..

[Kaihaku]

In the end, it really depends on if you view human beings as animals or not. If the only point in a romantic relationship is sex, than certainly... If perhaps you would like something deeper than you are quite incorrect. Our we like bucks in heat or romeo and juliet. I suspect the answer is somewhere in between and varies based on person.

Re:This is true for my girlfriend..

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is to say, keep your romanticism as impermanent as possible. Romance is great, and having a deep love with someone is also great, but realize that the physical part is going to fade after a while. So keep the depraved willing at home, and get your mental stimulation outside.

Re:This is true for my girlfriend..

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that.

Women are kind of curious in this. They have a pathological need to be accepted by a man. They depend on a man to give their lives meaning. They crave validation; as a result they play all sorts of little mind games to get it. Viz. his girlfriend keeps calling herself stupid because she craves the validation from the man. She wants to be recognized by the man; to know that she is smart is not enough, she depends on the male's acceptance to give true meaning to her life.

I don't know what kind of fucked up conditioning society pulls on women such that they turn out like this. Then again when I am being sucked off to completion for the third time in a row by some clingy geek girl, I can't say I have too much to complain about.

Re:This is true for my girlfriend..

[Kaihaku]

Most relationships on the "outside" are indeed impermanent. I suppose the difference here is between wanting a deep connection with someone to share all aspects of life with as opposed to temporary connections that are less in-depth and more entertaining.

Re:This is true for my girlfriend..

[Kaihaku]

Indeed, I have spoken to many people on the subject and while I don't believe that it is a natural condition, it is most definately deeply engrained socially.

Re:This is true for my girlfriend..

[britneys 9th husband]

Doesn't it work the other way around too? How many times have I browsed Slashdot and seen "you think you're so great and all going to MIT, but that jock from high school with the D- average is getting laid and you're not. Loser." It seems like most men feel a need for "validation" from women. Different KIND of validation, but validation nonetheless.

Re:This is true for my girlfriend..

[Kaihaku]

That's quite true. I dare say that must people require some sort of acceptence from others but the shape of that need is most definately defined by society.

I wanted first post

[Poppageorgio]

I tried to get a first post, but the pressure was too much and I passed out before I could hit "post"

Whohoo!

[JanneM]

I fall apart like a month-old spongecake if someone so much as asks me for the current time. That must mean I'm really bright, right? Right?

Re:Whohoo!

[LinuxGeek]

No, that just means you are socially inept... :)

Re:Whohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, do you have the time?

Re:Whohoo!

[DrLZRDMN]

mmmmmmmm....
Month-old sponge cake aughhhhhh
*Drools*

Re:Whohoo!

[Madcapjack]

Well, I can't remember how old I am. And I'm only 29! Wait, 28, I mean. I think.

Re:Whohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

I fall apart like a month-old spongecake if someone so much as asks me for the current time. That must mean I'm really bright, right? Right?

No. You are not smart.

You deduced from "Smart people choke under pressure" that since you choke under pressure, you must be smart. If the phrase had been "Smart people have fingers", which is just as true, then by your "logic", all people would be smart.

So while you may choke under pressure, that does not necessarily make you smart. The fact that you thought it did makes you decidedly unsmart.

Re:Whohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

WHUMP!

Re:Whohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

smartarse. :-)

Re:Whohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

I fall apart faster than a leper at a disco when people try to one-up my analogies...

Re:Whohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, please, the President does not HUMP. Republicans are above such vile things. Obviously somehow Laura gave birth to those darling daughters by holding Dubya's hand.

Re:Whohoo!

[UserGoogol]

I love when people make this logical fallacy on Slashdot, (Although he did not. He was joking.) because it gives me an excuse to quote Der Python.

"What do you do with witches?"
"Burn Them!"
"And what do you burn apart from witches?"
"More witches! (slap) Wood?"
"So why do witches burn?"
"Because they're... made of... wood?"

Re:Whohoo!

[Alan Partridge]

I don't care how they came about, I'd sorely like to subject them both to an illegal invasion.

Re:Whohoo!

[Alan Partridge]

Pretty much all people ARE smart.

Re:Whohoo!

[Hrothgar The Great]

So did you miss the sarcasm/humor because you choked under pressure, which would mean that you are smart, or is it because you're a big dummy? Just curious.

Re:Whohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? Jenna looks so much like George it freaks me out.

Distraction

[ryanjensen]

Like that show, Distraction, on Comedy Central. The contestants seem smart, but fail to answer simple questions when being hit in the head with bottles or having a same-sex lapdance performed for them.

Sitting at home I can answer all those questions, but I'm sure they all could too. I'm not about to try my luck with the taser-arm-wrestling bit though.

Re:Distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, um, CC's Distraction... brilliant analogy ...not

Re:Distraction

[Aeiri]

...having a same-sex lapdance performed for them.

I would say opposite sex lap dances would distract them more... at least it would for me...

Re:Distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you've never had a same sex lap dance, certainly not while being watched by a live studio audience lol.

Re:Distraction

[martyn s]

Why, are you gay?

Re:Distraction

[ldspartan]

On national TV? I don't know, same-sex (me bring straight) would make me more uncomfortable...

--
lds

Re:Distraction

[Aeiri]

On national TV? I don't know, same-sex (me bring straight) would make me more uncomfortable...

More uncomfortable? Of course... would you be uncomfortable with an opposite sex person on top of you? No.

I said more DISTRACTED, which nobody who responded to my post seemed to be able to read. You would be more distracted with some chick rubbing up against you (hell, you might not even hear the question), than with a guy rubbing up against you. If a guy is rubbing up against you, you want it to stop, so you'll pay attention. Other way around, you probably won't want it to stop, so you will purposefully lose the question.

This is, of course, assuming you are a straight guy, not woman... but this is Slashdot ;)

Re:Distraction

[danila]

Most people are not complete animals and can keep their composure during a lap dance by the member of opposite sex if they need it. Think about it, if you discreetly look at some porn pics during a business meeting, will you automatically unzip your pants and start jerking off or can you pretend you are listening to the presentation? You probably can.

A lap dance by the member of your sex, on the other hand, is distracting, because it is uncomfortable, shameful and embarassing (to most people).

Re:Distraction

[Aeiri]

Think about it, if you discreetly look at some porn pics during a business meeting, will you automatically unzip your pants and start jerking off or can you pretend you are listening to the presentation? You probably can.

Interesting point, but breasts rubbing against your face is a bit different than small pictures on a TV screen.

Oh wait this is Slashdot, forgot, nobody here knows the difference ;)

Re:Distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it, if you discreetly look at some porn pics during a business meeting

Remind me never to shake your hand during meetings.

Re:Distraction

[Eric604]

but how did you know? ;)

Which might be why

[Kipsaysso]

The first few replies on /. can be a little easy to predict.

Re:Which might be why

[daraf]

umm ... uh ... umm ... first post!!!

I dunno...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do tend to crack under pressure. But, then again who's to say that I'm smart? I mean, I can't objectively judge myself. Plus, I've made at least two errors while typing this...

Re:I dunno...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhhhh, the pressures of posting messages on /.

Smart?

[mboverload]

The "smart" personality types are generally this way. People like me are the "inventor" class, we are geniuses when it comes to ideas and thinking "outside the box." However, following through on these projects is the hard part. Usually we like to get a project started then let someone else take over when our attention span is used up.

Of course, no company would bother even thinking of these things, even though it would make them more productive with happier workers.

Re:Smart?

[Umbral Blot]

If you feel that you are only an "inventor" or have a short attentions span that is not neccesarily something to be proud of. Most famous inventors completed their inventions, that is why that are famous. I find that if I feel like I am becoming bored on a project I try to break it up into smaller challanges, each of which is individually intersting.

Re:Smart?

[paulm]

I suspect that you are one of those people that I meet far too often who love to complain about the fact the world just doesn't know the "correct" way to see how smart they really are. I suspect that you are one of those people I meet far too often who constantly espouse the firm belief that they have these great genius level ideas, but that nobody recognizes it.

I would like to take this opportunity to call bullsh*t on you.

Thanks!

Re:Smart?

[Anubis350]

thank you, you beat me to it.

Re:Smart?

[mboverload]

I suspect you are just jealous.

Re:Smart?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Dude, I know. I'm an "inventor" genius, too. Also, I'm funny and attractive and girls like to have sex with me. I pretty much rock. It's just that I freeze up when it comes to being a genius or funny or attractive or having sex under pressure, so other people don't see those things, which is why I have to tell people how great I am instead of just letting them see it.

Re:Smart?

[guacamolefoo]

I find that if I feel like I am becoming bored on a project I try to break it up into smaller challanges, each of which is individually intersting.

I think that is excellent advice. In a manner of speaking, it is a way of "tricking" yourself -- viewed as a whole, many projects (after a burst of initial enthusiasm and excitement) become boring and work. Your method of dealing with it seems to me to be sensible. One of the frustrations in getting details on a project done is that some are fun to deal with and others seem to be intractable or involve doing things that aren't enjoyable or seem overwhelming, therefore, effort in those areas can peter out and those areas of the project wither on the vine.

People with good systems in place to deal with common problems -- such as doing things that may not be enjoyable or, alternatively, figuring ways to maintain interest in projects to make sure that everything gets done or figuring a way out of this run-on sentence -- those are the people who tend to be successful. From my observations, it is less innate intelligence than good personal work systems that differentiate high performers from underachievers.

In my line of work (I am an attorney) everyone has a college degree plus at least three years of graduate work, was smart enough to plan for and pass the bar, etc. Simply to get to be an attorney involves clearing a bunch of hurdles that weed people out who are ineffective on some fundamental level (insert lawyer jokes here if you want to be cynical). Starting with that base group of folks, I regularly observe some people who are chronic deadline-missers, who put out shoddy work, or who are otherwise not operating at as high a level as I think they should. Others seem to be able to get everything done and kick ass and take names while doing it. I wouldn't say that, as a general principle, the lower performers are "not as smart" or "not hard workers" -- the difference seems to me to be how effective their work systems are. And work systems are, essentially, ways to trick your brain into doing things that it really isn't meant to do.

A book I recently read mentioned an example where, when you wish to remember to take something in to the office in the morning, you put it in front of the door. This is essentially a trick to overcome your morning sluggishness. Things like this, in other contexts, make up your systems for getting things done (I think that was the name of the book, FWIW -- "Getting things done"), and the better systems you have in place, the more effective you are.

None of this speaks directly to the study described ever-so-briefly in the FA, but it does speak to the parent posts -- people that think of themselves as "inventors" to leave the details to others to finish up may simply have holes in their net of systems for methodically completing work. If their value as a sheer visionary is powerful enough, they may be valuable enough to an employer (or themselves) that the holes don't cause them career problems, but I'd bet that the same person with the same visionary ability with better work systems would be more successful, which is essentially a "me too" to the parent post.

Forgive the length -- I'm a lawyer.

GF.

Re:Smart?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Oooooooh! BURN! Hahahaha, he got you, paulm! You're TOTALLY jealous of guys who can go onto semi-anonymous message boards and tell other people that they're smart, and you KNOW it, bitch!

Re:Smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. You, my friend, are the true genius!

Re:Smart?

[St. Arbirix]

I mentioned this about myself to the people at my university's entrepreneurial center. We decided the best thing for me to do was find a good business partner.

OC + ADD = $$$

Re:Smart?

[nate nice]

Some disagree with you but I see your point. If you're a rather creative person, you tend to find ideas dull quickly. You can think of something, begin work on it and lose interest because something enw has popped up. I have countless programs I have started on and put into the will finish later pile. Mainly because I have thought of something else that consumes me, often unrelated, or another thing I would rather work on now. I generally don't go back because looking back on them I don't find them as interesting as the new idea. Sometimes I'm just too busy to keep focus on it anyways. Often it's just plain laziness. It's easier to think of something and design it than to actually implement it. I consider that a blessing. It's like getting a new pair of pants. All of a sudden, the old pair you had doesn't seem so attractive anymore, even if they were your favorite a day ago so you're left with the same amount of pants netting 0!

But, as someone has correctly pointed out here, the only way it counts is if you have the focus to follow through. I'm sure a few other "dreamers" thought of the combustable engine, graphical webbrowser, home computer, open source OS, etc, but the guy who actually thought of it and *did it* is the real winner. Or even better stole it.

Face it, we are people who enjoy thinking and designing so much that it doesn't leave time for actually doing. My brain just tickles me sometimes and I feel sorry for most others who will never have the thoughts I do.

Just keep notes of your thought and go through them every so often to see if you have the motivation to follow through on something. Personally, I am really making an effort to have better focus and discipline when it comes to following through on things.

With that, I know when the right thing comes at the right time, it will be that moment of glory in which I dominate the world.

Re:Smart?

[Kurayamino-X]

It's called ADD.

We only think we're geniuses because others don't think like us and we get these absolutely awesome ideas sometimes, problem is while occasionally they are good ideas, and they could be practical, usually there is some kind of basic violation of the laws of physics that prevents it from working like it should and it takes me a week or two to figure it out, if I havn't forgot about it completely by then.

We're not geniuses, we just get bored easily and try to find cool ways to ammuse ourselves.

Re:Smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Well said. Ok, well, not well said, but probably an accurate call.

For all that, though, the grandparent is semi-right. The really smart, really innovative types rarely have the motivation, attention, or desire to see their ideas fully implemented - reality tends to intrude and twist things away from their "vision." When they do pull something off, they excel. When they don't, they're just another face in the crowd.

(And for the record: I'm neither a genius nor innovative. I work with a few and, for the most part, they're annoying prima donnas. They just happen to have damn good ideas occasionally.)

Re:Smart?

[fitten]

I've seen exactly these things as well. ADD != genius. The other problem that folks with ADD tend to have is the inability to coherently relate their ideas to others. While this may seem to some people that the ADD person's thoughts are somehow "mystical" and "genius" because "their thoughts are so high-up that they can't be accurrately explained to us mere mortals", it's really just that the concentration and thought processes that it requires to explain the ideas are time consuming and involved so the ADD person has a difficult time staying on track and being thurough.

Re:Smart?

[Spy der Mann]

And also, there are the know-it alls who love to bash people smarter than them and make their life miserable.

Re:Smart?

[bergeron76]

I'm with you on this 100%. I just recently took the Mensa tests, and I think I choked because they were timed. On untimed/unconstrained tests, I score exceedingly high. My IQ results have varied from 145 to 127 based on the test / overall environment (time of day, caffeine intake, etc).

I don't know how many times I've read a question and found flaws in how the question was asked. I then reflect on what type of test it is. That inevitably spirals into "would this test/taker intentionally try to ask me a trick question or a question of this nature...", ad nausem. A simplified example would be:
"Select the number that doesn't match in this series:"
1 1 2 4

My train of thought could lead me to reasonably conclude that any of those numbers don't belong.
The first 1 doesn't belong because it's the only duplicate.
The second 1 doesn't belong because it too is a duplicate.
The 2 doesn't belong because the first letter of the other numbers are numerically less than half of the alphabet.
The 4 does not belong because 1+1=2; likewise the 4 does belong because 1+1+2=4

That logic is followed by "should I select multiple answers?"; the instructions don't indicate that I can't. But what if the professor doesn't see things the way I do? ... etc ...

Ultimately, I end up making a judgement call on which number didn't fit based on what I thought the tester wanted to hear. That doesn't help when you're smarter than the tester.

I think that the key to genius is thinking in reverse of the norm. The way I think, I _find_ a way to make the opposite of the norm fit the situation.

When someone says a square can't fit into a circle, I spin the square infinitely and expand the circle slightly (until it fits). I know that's a horrible example, but it works. Granted, I may have changed the rules, but what Genius doesn't?

I'm entirely convinced that it is very possible to be "too smart" for your own good/well being. For example, I should be working right now, but instead I'm being an arrogant self-absorbed philosopher here on /.

Re:Smart?

[Madcapjack]

Thank you for this very insightful post. I didn't finish it exactly, because I should be studying, and half-way through reading it, I realized that my participation in /. and other online forums is seriously impeding my productivity. Thank you. And now, off to work!

Re:Smart?

[nate nice]

Pfft, I invented Beer Cubes long ago.

Re:Smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are most likely a Myers-Briggs INTP:

http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html

Note particularly: "they would much prefer to build complex theoretical solutions, and leave the implementation of the system to others"

Also of important note: "The INTP may have a problem with self-aggrandizement and social rebellion"

But that hardly applies to anybody here...

Re:Smart?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

When someone says a square can't fit into a circle, I spin the square infinitely and expand the circle slightly (until it fits). I know that's a horrible example, but it works. Granted, I may have changed the rules, but what Genius doesn't?

You do understand that just the circle expansion would have done it, right? Maybe you did, since you acknowledged that it's a horrible example.

Personally, when someone asks me to fit a square peg in a round hole, I just punch them until they stop. Granted, I may have changed the rules, but what Genius doesn't?

Re:Smart?

[ikkonoishi]

The four is out of place.

Those are the starting numbers in the fibboraci(sp?) sequence.

1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 ect...

Re:Smart?

[Feanturi]

I wasn't involved in this thread, but could I possibly call bullsh*t back on you? Just curious, since I've never actually met anyone like the person you describe having met several examples of. Far too often, even. Wow, could I meet at least one so I can see what it's like? I have heard of such people, yes, but for you to have met so many while I have yet to meet one, suggests a bit of imbalance, or shall we say, gross exaggeration? I should perhaps mention that in the course of the work I do I interact verbally for sometimes hours at a time with many hundreds of people from all walks of life, every year.

Re:Smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply to get to be an attorney involves clearing a bunch of hurdles that weed people out who are ineffective on some fundamental level (insert lawyer jokes here if you want to be cynical). Starting with that base group of folks, I regularly observe some people who are chronic deadline-missers, who put out shoddy work, or who are otherwise not operating at as high a level as I think they should.

It pains me to say this, but I agree with you. That is a base group of folks.

(Sorry, couldn't resist :))

Re:Smart?

[NuclearDog]

"OC + ADD = $$$"

Agreed!

ND

Re:Smart?

[Feanturi]

Those are the starting numbers in the fibboraci(sp?) sequence.

You are both right and wrong, and that's what all the fuss is about. What you have said is technically correct, but we do not know the context in which this question was asked, which raises all of the questions the poster of that situation was talking about. Maybe those are the starting numbers of my locker combination, except the second 1 should be a 6.

Re:Smart?

[Omkar]

The combustible engine is easy. The hard part is getting it not to combust while stuff burns usefully inside.

Re:Smart?

[bergeron76]

I guess you don't know that you can fit the square through the round hole sooner and with less expansion by rotating it infinitely whilst pushing/pulling it through the hole.

I'm glad I could teach you something.

I just punch them until they stop. Granted, I may have changed the rules, but what Genius doesn't?

Your threat-mentality defines your intellect more than any rebutal I could post here.

Thanks for bumping my post though.

Re:Smart?

[loserMcloser]

Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else.

- Tyler Durden

Re:Smart?

[bergeron76]

I actually, am an INTP.

At least, I was about 8 years ago when I took the test (back in college).

I'm assuming the profile doesn't change much.

Re:Smart?

[Elfboy]

No, the second 1 is out of place.

1 2 4 8 16

too small a sample set to be a real question... (and yes I saw the fibbonaci series as well as few other options)

Re:Smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's still dumb.

If you can change the size of the hole, just expand the hold until the diameter is longer than the diagonal of the square, insert square, snap circle diameter to smallest value that still holds the square.

No need to "rotate infinitely" or any other mysterious crap like that.

Re:Smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

This statement is really seventy-one Characters long. Go on, count them

Re:Smart?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Um... No. "Rotating infinitely" just creates a circle from the square whose diameter is the distance between opposite corners of the square. In either case, the square will fit through when the circle is of greater diameter than that distance. Unless you're using some kind of fake relativistic effect that happens at infinite speed.

Your threat-mentality defines your intellect more than any rebutal I could post here.

Don't make me kick your ass, buddy.

Also, if you're going to call someone dumb, try not to misspell "rebuttal" while you're doing it.

Re:Smart?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

You're obviously not looking very hard.

"Far too often," when in the context of this level of dickery, is twice in a lifetime. I have had the privilege of knowing four. "Gifted" classes are a breeding ground for those kinds of people. I hope they eventually grew out of it.

Re:Smart?

[cgenman]

I know this was a joke, but it is overall very true. Separating one's self out because one is "more intelligent" than everyone else just shows how little one really understands everyone else. Many of the things that cause people to consider themselves more intelligent come down to cultural differences and an inability to communicate. Furthermore, while you may be good with abstractions and able to hack some perl into making your school website serve different pages based upon whether a teacher's IP block is looking at it, someone else you know may be able to be plopped down into any city in the world and be able to communicate with the locals to find out the safe neighborhoods, the best resturants, and how to navigate the subway system. Someone has the finger skills and the awareness to play duelin' banjos on a pair of keyboards simultaneously. Someone is holding down two jobs while trying to graduate school and still spend as much time as possible with their kid on a non-existent budget.

It does not help to think of yourself as intelligent. That only separates you from the knowledge you could gain from other people. Instead, think of yourself as you. Judge realistically whether you could meet the challenge of the options presented to you, but don't judge yourself or others outside of the context of challenges.

You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else. Once you have achieved this connection to mankind, you can learn from mankind. All the other viewpoint does is put up blinders.

Re:Smart?

[bergeron76]

Lesson #2:

Rotating infinitely, doesn't imply rotating infinitely "quickly".

By "finessing" the square (assuming it and the round hole had an equivalent depth) you could indeed fit a 3 Dimensional square into a smaller circle.

Don't make me kick your ass, buddy.

I won't have to, because by continuing to ask pseudo-intelligent questions, you may someday develop a brain.

Re:Smart?

[bergeron76]

Also, if you're going to imply that I'm calling you dumb, which I never did, try not to misspell your name, "CosmeticLobotomy", whilst doing it; dumbass.

Re:Smart?

[bergeron76]

I intentionally used a small sample size to illustrate my point.

Given almost _any_ question/sample size I can rationalize any (if not all) of the provided answers. Most likely, I'll be able to rationalize multiple answers, and therein lies the problem when it comes time to circle an answer (or two, or three, or all).

As I said, I firmly believe that a person can be too intelligent for his/her own good - overthinking can be as detrimental (if not more so) than not thinking at all.

Re:Smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I think you make some good and valid points here, I do think you miss the main point. Intelligence IS a unique attribute of certain people, just as having banjo picking skill is, or any of the other attributes you have mentioned.

What if someone is intelligent beyond the norm - is it wrong to accept that fact and allow the person to accurately describe themselves as intelligent? Why does it not helpt to think of oneself as intelligent if that is an accurate descriptions of ones abilities? I don't think such a view of oneself automatically puts up "blinders" as you say - does an accurate understanding of ones attributes put up blinders?

Or are you arguing that there are all different types of intelligence? Or that "intelligence" is hard to define?

-

you wrote:
"You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else. Once you have achieved this connection to mankind, you can learn from mankind. All the other viewpoint does is put up blinders."

Well how about this for a response: I am the only consciousness that I can validate and perceive to exist, I am the center of all perceiveable and conceiveable reality beyond which nothing can be known to exist. Not only my self, but everything in existence, and every instant of that existence is unique, different and special.

F*ck Tyler Durden or whatever his name was and his intellectually/existentially/philosophically meager level of development.

Re:Smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

This describes me too. I tend to have a lot of creative thoughts, I can have idea after idea after idea. I write pages of ideas down, I jump out of bed at night and write things down, I just walk down the street and get lost in thought and invention and such. Ideas and creativity and problem soving and invention is a very great joy and passion for me. I look at most people I know and frankly I find it hard to understand how all they do is bascially consume. They just don't have that spark of creativity, for me it is a huge part of who I am, and it makes me think most other people are really lacking in a certain way, as if their lives are so much poorer for lack of it.

But just as you said, I can begin one thing and something else grabs my attention and passion and the original idea doens't seem as exciting as the new one and so on and so on. In some ways that is brilliant, it just means I am bursting with passion and creativity for so many things and they just keep coming and coming, and it is so much fun. Since I was a kid I have been like that, desiging things and inventing things and working it all out in my head and on paper etc etc.

But what I have learnt is that you really have to force yourself to stick to one thing or else you will never get anything done. If your ideas are anything like mine they are not easy things to actually accomplish - I mean some simple inventions that people create like some little plastic thing that goes on top of bins or whatever: I would be ashamed to put my name to such a thing. My ideas/inventions tend to be complex and technology oriented and thus take a hell of a lot of effort and time to actually bring to material reality.

I have been working on a project for over three years now, it is the first time I have really applied myself and decided I am going to see it through to the end. What I now find is that it is self perpetuating - I have spent so much effort and time on this project that I can't bear the thought of abondoning it and wasting all that time and effort. That is a great effect that I did not know would occur,and it makes things easier.

It can be hard thought. The initial creation phase is full of excitement and passion. But as weeks turn to months and then years it can become less exciting. However, as another poster said, I finish off pieces of it one after another and there is a little rush of excitement starting each new part and then a rush of excitement as I finish each part. Also I have a secondary project that I work on very lightly which I turn to at certain times(often when the main project is going through a stage of being a little tiresome), but never allow it to get too serious, which gives me some extra passion when I am lacking it on the main project.

So basically I think the best thing would be if I could simply transform my thoughts directly into physical reality, that is the only way I could really keep up with all my ideas, but the reality is that at the moment is takes a lot of concerted effort and time to get it done. With rapid prototyping machines and 3D printers possibly becoming cheaper and more common place the ability to quickly convert ideas to physical reality will hopefull speed up. I have pages upon pages of ideas and inventions and at the current rate of realization I would not be able to finish them all in a normal lifetime - I'm still hoping for life extension though. But I suppose in another twenty years half those ideas will be outdated anyways and I will hopefully have filled up many more pages with yet more and newer ideas.

Re:Smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ask yourself one question. What have you actually done with your life?

Re:Smart?

[nate nice]

Discipline and focus are the keys to actually doing it. Patience is what holds them together.

Re:Smart?

[dustmite]

It's true. Some people are very smart. Some people are very hard-working. These are separate traits. It's rare to find someone with the right combination that includes both traits (and other required 'success' traits). (Plus, life has to deal that person the right circumstances, or rather, not the wrong circumstances.) Being smart and having good ideas is almost entirely meaningless if you aren't willing to work hard at it.

Re:Smart?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Then "rotating infinitely" is nonsense. You either meant rotating infinitely fast or for infinite duration. Infinitely fast gets you nothing, as discussed, and infinite duration seems pretty pointless when you could use your magic hole-widening powers in what I assume is finite time. The only thing I can think of that you might have meant is to rotate continuously, which would only serve to widen the hole and crush the square slightly, which again seems pointless considering you apparently have a forstner bit handy.

This is already easily the most childish conversation I've ever had, so I won't respond to the thing about the name.

Re:Smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great. I did count them. Your post was seventy-one characters long, just like this one one hundred thirty-four characters long.

~ND

Valedictorian

[wpiman]

It has been well shown that school valedictorians don't go on to the best careers. This may well explain it.

I think that the self confidence that comes with being "accepted" is what turns people into those that perform well under pressure.

The creme de la creme students tend to be geeky and outcasts- hence lack the self confidence to do well under pressure.

Re:Valedictorian

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop trying to justify to yourself why you fucking sucked in high school.

Re:Valedictorian

[miskatonic alumnus]

I think it's all a bunch of bullshit. I am a lone wolf type. I don't get along well with others. I couldn't give two shits less whether people "accept" me or not, since I frankly don't value most peoples' opinions on anything. I have completed several projects, under pressure, to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Everybody's different.

I'm going to sound like an arrogant ass

[drinkypoo]

But if I'm as smart as people think I am, then this explains a lot. My memory is usually pretty horrible except when I'm really interested in something (oddly enough I keep remembering all these hydraulics formulas that I'm learning lately) and when I have to take a test I usually choke, and hard. I'm getting better, I think, but in general I've tested very poorly even in subjects that I know.

Re:I'm going to sound like an arrogant ass

[dgatwood]

Ditto. I find that my ability to take tests is inversely proportional to my level of indifference. I always did well on math tests, badly on history tests. In history, I would struggle to remember things that I could have recited word-for-word the day before.

I can't remember historical dates worth anything, but I can remember pi to twenty-ish digits (down from fifty-ish in high school) and long random numbers used as passwords.

When it comes to things I want to do, I thrive on pressure, as it forces me to actually get it done before I start becoming apathetic about it (which is followed quickly by loathing and tends to result in difficulty getting it done).

When it comes to things I don't want to do, I have a hard time dealing with presure because I tend to wander off and do other things and never get back to it. When I'm doing something I don't want to do, the slightest thing will distract me hopelessly.

Re:I'm going to sound like an arrogant ass

[The Tyro]

That hardly sounded arrogant... and there's probably a couple of reasons why people consider you intelligent.

First, you have expertise in an area they find inscrutable and arcane... some Alpha-geeks in this forum can probably make a computer stand up and dance, and even the average slashdotter probably has far more knowledge than the average user.

Second, geeks often fit a cultural image of an intelligent person... a sort of misfit, weird professor paradigm. Sad to say, but sometimes just looking the part gets you further than your knowledge base.

Back on the subject of choking, consider that working/performing under pressure is a learned skill... it DOES NOT come naturally... quite the opposite, in fact. Your normal reaction is 180 degrees from what you need. I'm talking about the biological human reaction of adrenaline-dump, turn-off-higher-thought, shunt-blood-to-major-muscle-groups, and fight/run-your-ass-off. Reverting to lower-animal behavior isn't exactly conducive to complex problem solving. The US military has studied this in soldiers and special operations folks. They ran guys through very realistic scenarios, complete with EKG telemetry and some other physiologic monitoring. They found that "stress inoculation" in the form of realistic training, combined with experience allowed some individuals to operate much more effectively, instead of reverting to animal-level behaviors. Bottom line: the more you do it, the better you'll get.

Relax... you're normal. That veteran's seasoning and calm is only gained by experience.

Re:I'm going to sound like an arrogant ass

[Associate]

So what you're saying is that the reason I have such piss poor memory isn't because of all the second hand marijuana smoke, lead paint, mercury ingestion and kerosene fumes?

Re:I'm going to sound like an arrogant ass

[Boronx]

The trick to taking most high-school or college tests is the realization that the Prof has formulated any given question in order to get you to regurgitate one fact you heard in lecture or read from the book. All you need to do to answer any question is merely identify which fact that is and give it up.

For blue book tests, the situation is not much different. Only each question is keyed to a set of facts all related and most likely related in the course work, and you have to write pretty.

Re:I'm going to sound like an arrogant ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto. I find that my ability to take tests is inversely proportional to my level of indifference.

During highschool in math I got a B or B+ on every test there were and when the final exams came I gave up trying to get the A and "just did it" and went home. I got an A.

Re:I'm going to sound like an arrogant ass

[torokun]

I had this problem as well. The way to slowly solve it (it's not easy) is to start to see what you really want your life to be like. Once you start to see the consequences of failing to do the things you don't want to do, it may take a lot of effort, but you will start to see that you really do want to get those things done.

I started by setting very short-term goals. What I want to do in half an hour. I wrote down my goal, e.g. number of pages to read, and then tried to meet it. I checked my progress every half-hour, and wrote my result. Sometimes, I did it by the hour... This helped a great deal, because it kept me thinking that these were each small steps I could do, and they led to the result I knew I needed to get done...

It also made me feel more proactive, and prevented me from losing track of time when I zoned out. I knew I had to check my progress every half-hour...

conf t

[blackomegax]

reminds me of some CCNA classes i took. the labs were complex enough to give me something to dig into, to learn. when it came down to tests, cisco's at the time were horridly simple, and i just kinda procrastinated. the same applies to linux. using it, i learn alot. on labs and tests for it...not so much. article = dead on

Pinky = Brain

[Anonymous Coward]

HA you inferior swine! Now Pinky can take over the world while Brain takes the day off!

Re:Pinky = Brain

[Anonymous Coward]

One of them's a genius the other is insane. Pinky's the genius, he's just eccentric and more interested in Pippi Longstockings and Coulottes than taking over the world.

Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[Dancin_Santa]

My IQ is right in the 143-145 ballpark and I typically score in the 99th percentile on any standardized test. I excel in all areas that pertain to mental ability, and especially so in those tests with time constraints.

I graduated at the top of my high school and college classes, and I scored perfectly in my Masters program and successfully defended my thesis for my PhD. I currently run the single largest distribution organization in the world employing millions upon millions of people who almost simultaneously perform their work with very little oversight necessary from management.

This article is an excuse to defend people who think they are smart but are actually barely above-average. Like most Slashbots, actually. :-)

Re:Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[wpiman]

I currently run the single largest distribution organization in the world employing millions upon millions of people--

Oh- you work for Walmart.. I have been to your store- small world.....

Re:Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[Jeremi]

My IQ is right in the 143-145 ballpark and I typically score in the 99th percentile on any standardized test. I excel in all areas that pertain to mental ability...

... and yet you still haven't figured out that unprovoked, irrelevant bragging impresses no one. Curious.

Re:Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[Anonymous Coward]

So trollish. So delicious.

As if a "smart" person would fail to understand the difference between a controlled study, and a personal anecdote!

Bravo, Dancin Santa - I enjoy all your work :)

Re:Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[Anonymous Coward]

I excel in all areas that pertain to mental ability

Can you do a triple pirouette or a tour jeté?

Think dance or athletics are not "mental abilities?" Try taking a few ballet classes and think again. What do you think is controlling your muscles, or making your artistic decisions in movement?

Re:Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[BriniestMark]

Wow! You just generalized from a single example -- yourself. And you actually believe that you're intelligent? Well done.

Re:Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, you aren't allowed to redefine "currently run" as "driving a forklift"

Re:Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[Anonymous Coward]

If you cannot differentiate between a muscle and a nerve, perhaps you score well on timed tests.

Re:Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations!!!

There are at least 6,000,000 people with an IQ of 145 in the world.

Yes, you are special...

Re:Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[AsmCoder8088]

I think it means that Jean Luc just got back from a fight with Q and needed some means with which to explain his newfound mental fright.

http://www.basicreations.com

Re:Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[Zeinfeld]

... and yet you still haven't figured out that unprovoked, irrelevant bragging impresses no one. Curious

I strongly suspect that the effect reported would disappear if people received some training in taking the tests. I went to a private school with an entrance exam for the senior school. So every week we did practice tests. I managed to increase my score substantially.

Then we have idiots who say that IQ tests measure innate intelligence. Utter rubbish, there were 20 boys in the class and everyone had increased their score by at least 10 points.

One of the things you can teach is concentration and mental discipline.

Re:Probably a "smart" person writing the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations!!! There are at least 6,000,000 people with an IQ of 145 in the world. Yes, you are special...

And this is bad? It means that he is in the smartest 1/1000 of the population.

Further to fall if your smart

[jm91509]

Does the study take into account relative failure rates?

If your real smart to start with you have further to fall, while if your just dumb, presure won't affect you as your already dumb.

Re:Further to fall if your smart

[sconeu]

I can understand not RTFA, but at least RTFS (story).

Those with less capacity score low, too, but they tend not to be affected by pressure

Re:Further to fall if your smart

[Anonymous Coward]

You're onto something... Maybe it's just that "more intelligent" types have more variance in their scoring while "dumb" people consistently score badly.

Now all I want to know is...

[meganthom]

What does it mean if you DO perform well on high-pressure tests such as the GRE?

And for me, I would say that I do well on that sort of thing because I look at it as a game.

Recently, I have actually felt pressured (first-year in grad school), and my tests have suffered as a result. I am making mistakes that I normally wouldn't make. Part of the problem for me is that we have to use these tiny test booklets that only let you do about 1/3 of a problem on a page. I find myself obsessing about whether I copied everything from one page to the next correctly. Ugh.

But then maybe I'm just crazy. ;-)

Re:Now all I want to know is...

[Mr. Slippery]

What does it mean if you DO perform well on high-pressure tests such as the GRE?...Recently, I have actually felt pressured (first-year in grad school), and my tests have suffered as a result.

My hypothesis is that if you have a history of doing well on standardized tests, you don't see them as pressure. They're almost fun. I did well on the GREs - but I did well on the SATs, PSATs, all the way back to the Iowa standardized tests in elementary school. When you have the belief "I'm good at standardized tests", standardized tests aren't a lot of pressure.

(In fact I felt nostalgic a few months ago when taking the NCCAOM Asian Bodywork Therapy exam, which is given with old-school fill-in-the-bubble, #2 pencil forms, the way we used to take GREs and SATs back in the old days.)

But like you, I felt pressured in grad school. I didn't do as well as I would have liked. A decade later, and having recently gone back to school for a while to study therapeutic bodywork, I think the problem was that I had never developed good study habits - because I'd never had to.

Up until my junior year of college, pretty much everything I found interesting was fairly easy to learn. I actually was trying to do a double degree program - physics and computer science - in four years. (Not just a double major, mind you, but a double degree - requiring 150 credits. Ah, hubris.) I had the belief "I'm good in school," so there wasn't a lot of pressure or stress.

I managed to keep chugging along with the CS program, but the physics...when I hit the upper level classes, I just didn't get it. (Looking back I think the first problem was that I never got a firm enough grasp on differential equations.) And not getting the material was almost a completely new experience!

Sure, I'd hit the odd snag in trying to learn something new, but a few days of poking at it usually resolved it. This was different. Weeks of staring at it didn't make it go into my brain. I ended up dropping the physics side of my plan, finished my CS degree with good enough grades to get into grad school - where I hit the same problem of not knowing what to do when the way became difficult.

If I knew then what I know now, I might have tried such radical ideas as looking at the recommended supplemental reading, taking advantage of instructor's office hours, and studying with fellow students. But I'd gotten so far without even doing that, that it simply didn't occur to me. Maybe I even felt embarassed to try to get help. Pretty dumb for a "smart" person, eh?

So don't be like me! If things have been easy and suddenly get difficult, take advantage of all those support systems that "average" students use.

Re:Now all I want to know is...

[mbrother]

I double majored with electrical engineering and space physics, so I feel for you. The upper-level physics stuff IS just plain harder than many things you find elsewhere in school. If I wind up being forced to teach it (a possibility) I really need to work back up to it first, with some serious time set aside!

They certainly aren't making this up

[auburnate]

"In these math problems students have to perform subtraction and division, and if you're trying to hold information in your memory and you start worrying about performance, then you can't use your entire mental capacity to do the math," Beilock explained.

I am under some serious pressure in terms of writing a master's thesis in electrical engineering this semester and holding a position of responsibility in my church. While I was watching the Super Bowl with some friends, Frank commented about how Brian had bought a used car year 1991 for $500.
I piped up, "Well for being less than ten years old, thats a good deal!!! Where in the world I got that a 1991 car is less than 10 years old can only be attributed to this article's insights.
That or I'm just completely nuts.

Ummm... Duh

[irefay]

This comes as a surprise? People with a higher IQ tend to find that things come easier to them. Thus they do not deal with stress on a regular basis. When stress levels rise beyond what they are accustomed to (self induced stress caused from perfectionism) It's circuit overload. "Normal" people have to deal with stress regularly to accomplish a task. Thus they are more accustomed to it and can readily adapt.

Re:Ummm... Duh

[Madcapjack]

Smart people just start thinking about other things than adding and subtracting stupid numbers together. They are also smart enough to know that stressing out about it is not worth it. They've nothing to prove, and well, stress aint healthy.

I don't believe in timed exams. I think a better exam is one that a person is given a day to work out a difficult problem or set of problems.

Re:Ummm... Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

in other words, they've been sheltered and babied most of their lives without a challenge, nor have they been taught how to rise to the occasion and meet it head on. Mommy or their favorite teacher isn't sitting there cooing "ooh..that's easy for a smart boy like you..".

Re:Ummm... Duh

[Feanturi]

Ok, what just happened to me is way too funny, or at least, maybe it's funny to me because I've been drinking. Anyhow, I started to post about how I'm one of those people that has this 'curse' and realized that my typing was pretty impaired (I'm exerting a very solid effort right now), and so, given that this topic is about smart people, I realized that I would probably just come off like some kind of idiot and discredit myself, so I hit the back button.. And then it hit me, "Shit, I just did it didn't I??? That's too funny, I pretty much *HAVE* to post now, it's totally on-topic!"

Though now, I've sort of lost the thread of my original thought that I was going to post about, alcohol will do that. I could get it back, but then again, right now I worry that I won't get it out properly (just did it again, see??) so I'll just leave it here.

Beer good after stressful day, mmmmmmm.

Re:Ummm... Duh

[da cog]

I think you are wrong in saying that people with a higher IQ don't deal with as much stress as "Normal" people. Smart people often take on more difficult projects (such as higher level courses) that are commenserate with their increased abilities, so that they stress out as much (or maybe more than) "Normal" people.

It's true that there are a lot of smart people who don't challenge themselves and so just take life easy, but I'd imagine that's not a characteristic unique to people with a high IQ.

Re:Ummm... Duh

[bar-agent]

Yep, you were drunk. But on topic, and even insightful.

Well done!

Re:Ummm... Duh

[Associate]

stress aint healthy

I bet some doctors would take issue with this.

Re:Ummm... Duh

[dustmite]

Huh? Stress really isn't healthy. It's linked causally to hundreds of different disorders, dysfunctions, and increased vulnerability to diseases. It's linked causally to many life-threatening and potentially debilitating problems like heart attacks and strokes.

I don't know what doctors would take issue with the claim that stress isn't healthy, but I certainly don't want to be visiting those doctors.

(Or did you mean that a certain, low level of stress is healthy? Sure. But when people say things like "stress isn't healthy", in the English language this n implicitly means "high levels of stress". Without a qualifying adjective, the "default" meaning of the word "stress" is "excess stress", similar to how "luck" defaults to "good luck" unless qualified by an adjective such as "bad".)

Re:Ummm... Duh

[dustmite]

Is that what people who aren't going to amount to much in life tell themselves to make them feel better that they're not as smart as smart people? Because I know many smart people who do "rise to the occasion" to meet challenges head on, most of the smart people I know have become very successful in life, and are much better at hacking it "in the real world" than less smart people.

It's true that there are many who have been babied and will not amount to much in the real world, but the fact is smart people are far more likely to become very successful, and extremely few of the most successful people in the world are not very smart, and people who play down the value of being smart are usually just trying to make themselves feel better.

Re:Ummm... Duh

[Associate]

Eustress

In an academic setting

[Infonaut]

Let's not forget that the study tested performance under pressure in an academic setting. Real life is seldom like a standardized test, with clearly defined parameters. Testing responses in an academic environment is almost by definition easier, but these sorts of tests bother me because people make assumptions like, "smart people choke under pressure" based on the results of a test that uses a very precise definition of "smart" under very specific circumstances.

Re:In an academic setting

[xutopia]

when my boss puts pressure on me it feels a lot like a math exam. When I have "free" time is when I actually do the best things for my company.

me too!!

[Anonymous Coward]

AW, SHIT!!!

I have a question

[elid]

Were the subjects told before the test that one would be the "regular" one and one would be the "stress" (i.e. professors will see the scores) one? In other words, I'm wondering whether knowing beforehand that a test is important will lead to more studying/preparation and negate the effect of stress on the test day itself. If it negates such effects, standardized tests (although they may have other problems) wouldn't be affected by this issue, as the vast majority of people prepare for these exams.

First post!

[FiReaNGeL]

See? Too much pressure!! I'm halway down the page :(

And now...

[Jeremi]

... a demonstration of a web server cracking under pressure. :^P

Re:And now...

[Odin's Raven]

... a demonstration of a web server cracking under pressure. :^P

They were going to add more memory to the server, but figured it would make it even less able to cope with the strain. :-)

Re:And now...

[rzebram]

It's not so much cracking as it is exploding... with the traffic and the fires and the COOORE DUMPSSS

Re:And now...

[kevinadi]

Yeah I guess after this we can expect the argument that IIS is "smarter, way waaaay smarter" than any other webserver out there. With ActiveX it can even be smarter in more than one way.

Smart people crumble under pressure

[demon_2k]

Smart people are expected not to make mistakes and not to fail. We are all (even some of the smartest people) nothing but human, therefore we do make mistakes and sometimes fail. But, since you are smart people are likely to expect more from you.

"Let's see you get out of this.."
"You are so smart, why can't you..."

What people need to understand is that sometimes even the best of us make the wrong judgement. This things happen.

Re:Smart people crumble under pressure

[mboverload]

But it is hard for us to admit we are wrong.

Re:Smart people crumble under pressure

[bersl2]

One's perceived level of intelligence is proportional to one's distance from the black/whiteboard.

Re:Smart people crumble under pressure

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is hard for us to admit we are wrong.

Is not.

Re:Smart people crumble under pressure

[Anonymous Coward]

What people need to understand is that sometimes even the best of us make the wrong judgement. This things happen.What people need to understand is that sometimes even the best of us make the wrong judgement. This things happen.

Yeah, these things do happen ;)

Re:Smart people crumble under pressure

[tfinniga]

Yeah, after I got back my SAT and ACT results, I got a lot of cracks about how I'd make various simple mistakes.

I just told them that if it was multiple choice, I woulda got it. ;P

Re:Smart people crumble under pressure

[Milo77]

In grade school I would miss simple questions because I was always trying to take into consideration much more than the question ever intended. Usually once the answer is revealed, I would say "oh, is that all they wanted." This led to a lot of second guessing later in life. I do, however, tend to do alright in the "real world" since taking as many things into consideration usually makes for a better outcome (design or whatever).

Re:Smart people crumble under pressure

[Moofie]

I think being able to admit when you are wrong is where intelligence begins.

If you think you're never wrong, I don't think you're very smart.

Re:Smart people crumble under pressure

[EnronHaliburton2004]

But it is hard for us to admit we are wrong.

Screw you! I'm not wrong, YOU ARE!

Re:Smart people crumble under pressure

[Anonymous Coward]

George W Bush, is that you?

Re:Smart people crumble under pressure

[Kyont]

So that explains why certain people are always sitting in the front row in my classes!

Horribly useless

[costas]

So the article says that lower-pressure tests should be incorporated into the MCAT or GMAT... because of course that's what you want in your doctor or manager: someone who cracks under pressure and can't remember what he was taught.

Intelligence, like good science, is useless if it's not applied properly or at all. The same can be said for this article...

Re:Horribly useless

[PepeGSay]

The article actually says "the research calls into question the ability of high-pressure tests such as the SAT, GRE, LSAT, and MCAT to accurately gauge who will succeed in future academic endeavors". They are calling into question whether that person will succeed in future academic endeavors..... though I ,like you, would be more concerned about their ability to succeed in future real-life endeavors. If they can cut out the soft ones before the even get a chance to get the high-pressure in real-life, that sounds good to me.

Re:Horribly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

> what you want in your doctor or manager: someone who
> cracks under pressure and can't remember what
> he was taught.

with a smarter manager, there's a better chance he'll never get into a pressure-situation to begin with.

ac.

Re:Horribly useless

[f8free]

These kinds of studies are what I like to call "horoscopes for the scientifically minded."

Take from it the qualities which best stroke your own ego.

Re:Horribly useless

[benjamindees]

Really what you'd like to have is a doctor or manager who thinks far enough ahead not to bring unnecessary pressure on himself in the first place.

You want your doctor to recognize, and warn you, that high blood pressure can lead to heart problems. You want him to research medications for you that can help prevent those heart problems. What you don't want is the doctor who's too stupid to realize this and fails to plan ahead to prevent it, yet performs your emergency bypass surgery flawlessly.

You don't want the manager who ignores all warning signs of emminent failure, yet manages to scrape by when failure occurs. You want the manager who plans ahead and avoids failure to begin with.

Re:Horribly useless

[NSash]

Being able to "remember what he was taught" is about the last thing I'd be concerned about in a manager.

Re:Horribly useless

[ajna]

And academic endevours are free from stress how? The stresses of problem set due dates and tests are real. I certainly felt more stress from them during my undergrad years than I did by anything that came up during my brief stint at work (I am now back in school again, thus past tense).

Re:Horribly useless

[value_added]

though I, like you, would be more concerned about their ability to succeed in future real-life endeavors

Stay out of real-life endeavors.

Problems solved.

Re:Horribly useless

[jmv]

Doctors, managers and many others are one type of job where you need to work "in real-time". For many other jobs, including science, engineering (not all cases) and art, the result matters a lot more than the time aspect. Great discoveries, inventions or work of art usually aren't done under pressure.

Re:Horribly useless

[that _evil _gleek]

"Then the two groups were given the same test, but were told that they were part of a 'team effort' and an improved score would earn the team a cash reward."

Didn't earlier research suggest cash rewards weren't that helpful? While a better score on those tests may lead to higher salaries, I think it may be too abstract as the imediate cash reward. It's possible they've compounded things, coming out with result worse than normal pressure.

Re:Horribly useless

[Moofie]

I always found the stress of academia silly and trivial compared to, say, making rent. Or taking care of a family. Or not killing people when you're operating on their brain.

Then again, I was a student of modest talent at best. I never gave a damn about school. It was, for me, a means to an end: Never an end in itself.

Different perspectives...

Re:Horribly useless

[Zinch]

You make a very good point. You wouldn't want a doctor or manager that consistently fails to plan a good strategy but is good at sweeping up the pieces, so you do need a balance. On the other hand, consider the difference:

A doctor who's bad at planning ahead will have trouble eventually, with things happening that tip him or others off that things need to change. He or others can take time to figure out what needs to be done.

Alternatively, a doctor who cracks under pressure will screw up and someone will die.

The difference is that in the planning phase you have lots of chances to get it right, whereas in the emergency phase you generally have just the one. It's the same in businesses. All that said, it's generally accepted that in business, those managers that have a clear, well though-out strategy are the best at adapting when the world changes around them.

Re:Horribly useless

[Semi-Lagrange]

You're missing the point. The article refers precisely to those who do just fine under real life circumstances, but falter under testing circumstances for whatever psychological reasons. It calls into question the relevance of testing as an indicator to how one will perform in "real life".
In your terms, the doctor who flunks the MCAT may in fact be brilliant when confronted with real patients, because the degree of scrutiny is not as extreme.

Re:Horribly useless

[Anonymous Coward]

So the article says that lower-pressure tests should be incorporated into the MCAT or GMAT... because of course that's what you want in your doctor or manager: someone who cracks under pressure and can't remember what he was taught.

You don't get it. I would prefer to be treated by a smart doctor who falls apart during an interview than a mediocre one who interviews just fine. In their day-to-day element, the smart one will outpace the mediocre one by a longshot. One characteristic of the kind of pressure that causes smart people to cave is that it doesn't happen on a regular basis.

ENTP personality type

[mboverload]

"ENTPs are known for their quest of the novel and complex. They have faith in their ability to improvise and to overcome any challenges that they face. They are highly independent, and value adaptability and innovation. They may be several steps ahead of others in encouraging and valuing change. They hate uninspired routine and resist hierarchical and bureaucratic structures that are not functional. They need freedom for action....

The worst job for them is working for someone who demands considerable rule following or tries too often to tell or order, rather than make suggestions to the ENTP. Throughout their careers, ENTPs want their work to be enjoyable, with interesting possibilities for applications. Additionally, having their work widely acclaimed and accepted as a unique contribution would be highly gratifying for ENTPs...

They prefer the start-up phase of a project rather than the followthrough or maintenance phase. Once the project is designed, they prefer to turn it over to someone else. They take initiative and inspire others toward greater accomplishments and challenges."

Re:ENTP personality type

[bergeron76]

I'm actually an INTP, but I'm very borderline E/I.

Your point is taken though.

Re:ENTP personality type

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo ENTJ ("The Executive" / "The Fieldmarshal") is where its at. You don't see those guys cracking under pressure ;P.

Re:ENTP personality type

[Pecisk]

Wholy shit, this is 100% me :)

Now I see where lies my problem.

Re:ENTP personality type

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an INTJ and I am trying to work, so why don't you just leave me alone!

The Portrait of the Mastermind (INTJ)

Re:ENTP personality type

[koekepeer]

personality type is not linked to intelligence.

in fact, the Myers-Briggs sorter is a weird mix of Jungs Ego defenses and some behavioral traits. i am ENFP with a PhD in molecular/cell biology, and supposedly quite smart. i know of INTJ, ESFP, ENTP, INTP, and ENTJ colleagues (scientists), and all of them can be challenged with the "shit there are too many options and i'm blocked" syndrome. many of them were severely stuck (chocked if you wish) ate some time or the other.

i think the explanation from the intelligence POV is more likely than one from the personality Type POV, since all of the above are smart people who differ quite a bit in personality Type.

regarding the article: i think a lot does have to do with getting experience. many people who are scared to fail, or cannot get their priorities straight, or whatever, learn to deal with this as they mature in their (working) life. in the end, the smart guy/gal is better off (thank god!).

Re:ENTP personality type

[Anonymous Coward]

INFPs are way cooler, anyway. INTPs are ok. Everything else is crap.

Re:ENTP personality type

[Anonymous Coward]

THAT is SUCH CRAP! if you'd read into personality type just a tiny bit you would... oh... look! a bird!

(ENFP)

Re:ENTP personality type

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but the MBTI, as most people use it, is a load of crap. It's based on Jung, so ipso facto it is not based on science (Jung often scoffed at the idea that he should conduct experiments to back up his claims). And as a scientific instrument, it has relatively poor reliability. Your results, even though they are (according to MBTI dogma) never supposed to change, are 30% to 75% likely to be different when taking the test a second time, depending on which studies you believe. But of course, you're not "supposed" to take the MBTI more than once, according to the official dogma, which strikes me as being a tad convenient.

At best, it's like a long-range weather forecast. Kinda sorta close to being right most of the time, at least when talking about large groups of people. Despite this, MBTI devotees talk about their "type" as though it's as clear, obvious, and immutable as the color of their eyes.

I'll be damned

[AgentUSA]

Donovan McNabb really is smart.

Re:I'll be damned

[Anonymous Coward]

that fucking hurts.

Damn him for losing that game...

Re:I'll be damned

[Snarfy]

I was going to make this comment. I'm glad I searched through all the comments first.

Go Eagles '05-'06 !

Re:I'll be damned

[Anonymous Coward]

you bastard :) funny, though. I'll remember to mock you when the Eagles win it next year.

Re:I'll be damned

[BRSQUIRRL]

I just wonder what percentage of Slashdot's demographics will understand this post. :)

Re:I'll be damned

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the same percentage who will understand that the New York Yankees are the smartest team in baseball.

YOU FAIL .... wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Misleading title

[photon317]

The "smarter" ones did better than the average ones in a no-pressure situation, but all involved did equally poorly when under pressure. A more accurate conclusory title might have been "Nobody performs well under pressure, even smart people".

Re:Misleading title

[Jesrad]

From TFA:
Under this higher, real world pressure situation, the HWM group's score dropped to that of the LWM group, which was not affected by the increased pressure.
One group's score dropped, the other group got the same result.

Hmmm...

[daveschroeder]

From TFA:

The study analyzed 93 undergraduate students from Michigan State University to determine their working-memory capacities. The students were divided into two groups, a high working-memory group (HWM) and a low working-memory group (LWM). Each person was given a 24-problem math test in a low-pressure environment. The HWM group did substantially better.

Then the two groups were given the same test, but were told that they were part of a "team effort" and an improved score would earn the team a cash reward. They were also told their performance was being evaluated by math professors.

Under this higher, real world pressure situation, the HWM group's score dropped to that of the LWM group, which was not affected by the increased pressure.

Since working memory is known to predict many higher-level brain functions, the research calls into question the ability of high-pressure tests such as the SAT, GRE, LSAT, and MCAT to accurately gauge who will succeed in future academic endeavors.

Hmm, that must mean that no one scores extremely high on standardized tests, then.

Oh, wait.

They do.

How can that be possible?! Could it be that some people are very bright, have good memories, AND can do well in high pressure situations?

Does that mean that no one who might not do the best on standardized tests wouldn't make a good doctor or lawyer or graduate student? Of course not. But standardized tests are an imperfect solution for weeding out candidates, period. It's just like college: does college "prove" that you're smart? No, but it shows you have the willpower and wherewithal to perform the task, and many other intangibles that go along with it. Does standardized testing prove anything? No, but a lot is implicit in an outstanding test score, and THEN, for most of the things discussed here, such as medical school, law school, and other graduate programs, you go to the next level: personalized interviewing and personalized attention. Standardized tests are, again, just an imperfect way of whittling down the candidate pool in the most sensible way possible.

You can't ignore people who perform extremely well on standardized tests.

Re:Hmmm...

[elid]

AFAIK, most CS grad schools don't do interviews. I'm not familiar with other grad school fields, though.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's strange because I have a very high IQ (not going to quote it here) and I've always done well on all testing. Without studying. It's just a gift. I can't explain it.

Yes, there are people with high IQs and no street smarts, social skills or capability to handle pressure. But I seriously doubt they vary any more than average folk.

Re:Hmmm...

[incom]

Well, I do great on standardized tests, but I take into consideration that high stress causes inferior performance, and have well adapted myself for supressing it. Maybe I, and the other high scorers, are just outsmarting the shortcommings of high intelligence ;)

Re:Hmmm...

[Comatose51]

I would say it depends on the college you graduated from. It doesn't PROVE you're smart but if you graduated from MIT, it suggests that you're more likely to be smart than the average joe. Does that mean anyone who didn't go to a good, challenging college isn't smart? No. But we know converses of statements aren't necessarily true.

So if you do extremely well on standardized tests, chances are you're fairly bright to some extend. It doesn't mean you'll be a Nobel Laureate just because you got a 1600 on the SAT. It doesn't mean you're a dumbass if you got a 1200. It just means if you score high, there's a potential for success. Let's NOT ignore these tests. Universities don't use them for no reason. They're imperfect, yes, but they do work for most parts. But there's more to success than just potentials.

Re:Hmmm...

[UlfGabe]

Idiot, there are people who dont worry about taking those tests because they are bunk.

It is called relaxing. Learn to live with it.

I wrote my *AT tests and scored above the 96% percentile on average. (ie top 4% of those who had written the test on that day)

my plan was to not study, (i was told studying doesnt help) i just looked at the general format of a math question, a this queation and a that question so i wouldnt be all freaked out because i couldnt understand syntax. (imagine being told a program was written in C, and you knew C, and then they give you perl and still say that is is C, one word, FUCKED)

I just walked into the test, wrote it, went home, and went for a run. Not that big of a day.

Re:Hmmm...

[dev_alac]

How can that be possible?! Could it be that some people are very bright, have good memories, AND can do well in high pressure situations?

Perhaps some do well because they don't percieve the test as a high-pressure situation? I for one do pretty well on tests, but do not usually percieve them as life- and career-threatening events that it seems some of my peers do. I think much of the article may be correct, and the perception of crisis can blunt otherwise smart people.

Re:Hmmm...

[damiam]

Dude, 96 percentile on the SAT is only a 1400 or so. Not too shabby, but I don't think it's justification for calling other people idiots and bragging about how you didn't study.

You're right, though, that studying for the SAT is pretty much useless (or at least it was; I don't know how much the new SAT is changing things). Either you can think logically the way you need to or you can't; there's not much you can do about it (except cram on vocabulary). Now, there's not really any evidence that the type of thinking required by the SAT has any correlation to achievements later in life, but there's still plenty of reason to worry about taking it. Bad standardized test scores will keep you out of most upper-level colleges, so your SAT score does have at least some significance.

Re:Hmmm...

[Omestes]

And yes, these tests are adjusted for that. Your point makes no sense when you take that in consideration.

Lets say that a majority of 'smart' people choke on test, but do slightly better than 'nonsmart' people, then the test makers would adjust performance around that metric.

If we take the same test, and relax the pressure, than the smart people will do better.

Re:Hmmm...

[Feanturi]

How can that be possible?! Could it be that some people are very bright, have good memories, AND can do well in high pressure situations?

Yeah but it's all about stress. Standardized tests are not necessarily stressful to a smart person. A lot depends on the perceived seriousness of the situation at hand. A serious situation could be a test that the individual places a high level of importance on, when combined with a sense of self-doubt. The self-doubt is not necessarily present in all test situations. Or it could be some other process they are suddenly forced to implement, most likely a new unfamiliar one with big consequences from errors. Confidence from past experience at succeeding in creating useful information on-the-fly goes a long way to combat this. But it still only goes so far. The breakdown in calm methodical reasoning and memory-sorting occurs as the realization sinks in that this is really important because of "this, this, and that other thing there, and the six things that will go wrong if such-and-such choice goes awry, and the other problems that will be caused later from such a failure, and blah blah blah ad nauseum". There's a lot of noise in an intelligent brain, most of the time it's organized, but let it slip and it's all over the damn place. Often the defense-mechanism, for me at least, is to shut down for a bit, during which time my clarity of thought becomes seriously impaired. I wind up getting through the situation with my reputation intact on sheer willpower.

Re:Hmmm...

[dubiousmike]

You know, you mean to be funny, but you have a point.

Doing well in stressful situations is due to training, preparation and self control, not because you are too stupid to get nervous about success.

The more you practice being in stressful situations, the easier it is to handle them.

Re:Hmmm...

[mackstann]

I do very well on tests, but the thing is, I never really feel pressure to do well. In the study, they told them they were up for a cash prize, and that they were being analyzed by smarty math professors. Most tests aren't anything like that. And if you already know you're smart, you're possibly even less likely to worry about test performance, since you know you'll do pretty well anyways.

Re:Hmmm...

[Bodrius]

I think this is due to:

I) Not everyone stresses out on tests, standarized or not.
Particularly in aptitude tests, many people do better because they don't care too much.
II) Some people are conditioned to 'high-stress test' situations, so that the situation becomes routine and they don't stress out.

If this is true, the second factor would suggest the standarized test culture is selective towards:

A)Individuals that train themselves specifically to take tests (with all those 'beat the SAT/GRE/GMAT' courses and books).
It is arguable if it is a good idea to favor this group, as the positive non-test-specific skills represented by this should be (normally) better represented by schoolwork.

B) Alumni from schools with methodologies centered on low-count, heavy-weight tests.
Once more it is arguable if this is the best educational methodology to select for.

Personally, most criticism I have seen against standarized tests has been very sophistic, but from what little information was in the article this does not seem to be the case.

From the point of view of an admissions board, I don't think it will ever be a reason to ignore the tests, just another thing to consider their weight when evaluating a candidate. Unfortunately, there are a lot of graduate programs that do not use personal interviews as part of the admission process.

Also, since we're talking of a standarized test, I don't think it even makes sense to worry about extreme outliers: they're likely to be considered differently anyway.

This is more likely to affect the larger population that does consistently better in less stressful circumstances but show 'normal' performance under pressure. If anything is affected, it would be the minimum bar for test scores, or the interpretation of a CV-vs-TestScore disparity.

Re:Hmmm...

[benjamindees]

Ditto. Yet this is somewhat of a feedback loop we're talking about here. People who think they will do well (because they are prepared, intelligent, whatever) don't stress. Those who think they won't do well, stress themselves. How do you tell which causes which?

Re:Hmmm...

[rzbx]

"You can't ignore people who perform extremely well on standardized tests."

I don't believe anyone has argued that we should ignore them, in fact I'm sure they are not being ignored. You have stated the obvious for the most part. Everyone understands there are problems with testing.

"It's just like college: does college "prove" that you're smart? No, but it shows you have the willpower and wherewithal to perform the task, and many other intangibles that go along with it."

You have no problem stating that college does not prove your smart, but will easily argue that it proves you have willpower? If one graduates from college, it proves that one was able to graduate from college. There are plenty of people across the the spectrum of abilities and the papers that go with it.

"Standardized tests are, again, just an imperfect way of whittling down the candidate pool in the most sensible way possible."

I agree. But we need to ask how well it works, not agreeing that the top scorers shouldn't be ignored. In fact, receiving top scores on tests is far from the best indicator of either intelligence or willpower. There are many other factors involved. A good school doesn't standardize learning, they adapt.

Re:Hmmm...

[frenetic3]

You're right, though, that studying for the SAT is pretty much useless

That's completely wrong (both in terms of the old SAT and new.) You get better at the SAT with practice, just like you get better at playing guitar, sports, or programming with practice. Just having done a few practice tests gets you a reasonable improvement, then learning the basic strategies and concepts and serious vocab cramming gets you another big improvement, and then taking a ton of practice tests and working to improve your weak areas gets you pretty damn close to perfect scores.

I own an online SAT prep company (shameless plug, I know -- http://www.accoladeprep.com) targeted at the new March SAT (which is just as coachable, if not more so) and we provide an environment that allows kids to do the above, and they improve. (sorry if this sounds arrogant, but) I got a 1600 on the (old) SAT in 2000, and granted I do well on standardized tests but practice made the perfect score possible.

-fren

Re:Hmmm...

[Triffid_Hunter]

when i did the queensland/australia equivalent, i used a combination of incredible arrogance and not giving two hoots about the result.. consequently, i wrote utter drivel and got top marks.

Re:Hmmm...

[ooze]

I know this too well.

After my first car crash:
"Ohmygodohmygodohmygod..."
After my second car crash:
"Fuck! Fuck it!"
After my third car crash:
"Ooops, so what?"

Never had any more car crashs since then ;)

Re:Hmmm...

[ivrcti]

Having graduated West Point in '86, I fully concur. We proved time and again that careful, repeated exposure to stress while performing demanding mental tasks does lead to increased performance in the majority of strong willed candidates. Those who couldn't adapt, well they went back to Harvard!

Re:Hmmm...

[corngrower]

Since working memory is known to predict many higher-level brain functions, the research calls into question the ability of high-pressure tests such as the SAT, GRE, LSAT, and MCAT to accurately gauge who will succeed in future academic endeavors.

I never thought that these tests were particularly high pressure. I took my ACT's (SAT equivalent in midwest) having only about four hours of sleep the night before (prom night). I did reasonably well.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

such as medical school, law school, and other graduate programs, you go to the next level:

hmmm .... among my contempoaries at any rate, the common factor amongst those that took up medicine, law or graduate business programs was greed, not intelectual prowess (although they'd prolly call it ambition).

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, that must mean that no one scores extremely high on standardized tests, then.

Could it be that some people are very bright, have good memories, AND can do well in high pressure situations?

Or it could be that some people don't find those standardized tests high pressure.

I got perfect to near perfect scores on my ACT, SAT, and GREs - no sweat. Yet, when I have to get infront of an audience and give an extemporaneous talk, I freeze up. Like a statue.

Thing is, I didn't (still don't) care about my performance on the standardized tests. I knew I was smart - I knew I was going to score well - the standardized tests weren't going to be an issue when applying to schools (extracurriculars, letters of reccomendations, and essays were). It was only a question of weather I was going to get a 1500 versus a 1580 on my SAT. I felt no pressure, in fact, they were kind of fun, in a masochistic sort of way.

Re:Hmmm...

[Mad_Rain]

I wish I could mod you up further in the conversation, because you touch on a favorite subject of mine - measuring intelligence, and the different pieces of intelligence. We place an unfortunate amount of importance on standardized testing, because the only thing standardized test results do a good job prediciting is how well you'll do on standardized tests. (It only has a modest correlation with how well you'll perform in an academic setting, there are other factors that you mention, like persistance, that can be better predictors).

Defining intelligence is like defining what art is. When you ask a psychologist to define intelligence, you're as likely to get a clear, consistant, and straight answer as you are when you ask an art critic what art is. (Not to knock psychology - it's my job after all ;) ). What this researcher needs to continue to do is to look at the general "smart" people (not just college students) and find a better way to measure intelligence beyond math ability.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

| I agree. But we need to ask how well it
| works, not agreeing that the top scorers
| shouldn't be ignored

You're being too nice. My /. experience has been soured by running into this schroeder blowhard bitching at the top of every thread.

This is the white neocon in him talking. There's no need for improvement in things that already benefit his America. Things are good enough as they are. This is the modern American "conservative" test function - if it doesn't affect me, I'm for sweeping, foolhardy, hyper-liberal action. But... if a change occurs that would somehow retroactively erode my sense of accomplishment, from which I've derived self-worth (like being a good boy, going to school, getting a good job, finding a nice member of the opposite sex, becoming a career consumer and blind devotee to the $, loving my country and God) then it is BAD BAD BAD.

Re:Hmmm...

[Zcipher]

The study analyzed 93 undergraduate students from Michigan State University

See, that's their problem right there . . . their entire sample was made up of idiots ^_~

I keeed! I keeed!

-A U of M alumnus

Re:Hmmm...

[superflippy]

Could it be that some people are very bright, have good memories, AND can do well in high pressure situations?

Or it could be that some people don't find standardized tests stressful. I've always done well on standardized tests and now I wonder if it's partly because they never psyched me out. I didn't care whether or not my SAT scores were perfect, they just had to be "good enough." Likewise, I took the GRE just in case I decided to go to grad school - I wasn't trying to get in anywhere - and ended up doing really well. Perhaps if someone had threatened to kill me if I missed more than one problem, I might have succumbed to stress.

Tennis?

[xxx_Birdman_xxx]

This may sortof explain (or backup) why feel I play slightly better tennis when I have had a beer or two. I feel that it kinda slows down my brain just enough so that I dont actually worry or think TOO much about hitting the ball and letting natural abilities take over, but not too much beer that it starts to effect my judgement, etc.. In this state I tend to hit better shots..
So maybe its a matter of having that sweet spot; not having your brain process every bit of data and wigging out from the possibilites of failure, while still having the smarts to get the task at hand done correctly.

Re:Tennis?

[mboverload]

In fact, concentration is actually your brain turning off certain areas so you have less "interference".

Counter-intuitive, but it makes sense.

Re:Tennis?

[Omestes]

Actually one evening I noticed the same thing with pool. After 2 or so beers I play like a champ, after that I'm lucky to hit the cue ball, and before that I'll take ten minutes picturing geometry, and completely miss the shot.

Same thing for dealing with the opossite sex. After 2 beers I'm charming, after that I'm a drooling fool, and before I'm just a reserved, toungue tied geek.

This might be a question of inhibition though, and not actual mental power. In pool I fear losing. With chicks I fear making an ass of myself. With the right amount of booze, before it muddles my brains, I don't care.

So who does well on tests?

[masonbrown]

I do very well in testing situations. Where does that put me?

Re:So who does well on tests?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't put you anywhere. Instead, it puts my dick into your mouth.

Re:So who does well on tests?

[flacco]

well, you dullard, you'll be figuring out the most efficient routes for the garbage truck.

Just in case... (article text)

[jdogg82]

People perceived as the most likely to succeed might also be the most likely to crumble under pressure. A new study finds that individuals with high working-memory capacity, which normally allows them to excel, crack under pressure and do worse on simple exams than when allowed to work with no constraints. Those with less capacity score low, too, but they tend not to be affected by pressure. "The pressure causes verbal worries, like 'Oh no, I can't screw up,'" said Sian Beilock, assistant professor of psychology at Miami University of Ohio. "These thoughts reside in the working memory." And that takes up space that would otherwise be pondering the task at hand. "When they begin to worry, then they're in trouble," Beilock told LiveScience. "People with lower working-memory capacities are not using that capacity to begin with, so they're not affected by pressure." The findings are detailed this week's issue of Psychological Science. Working memory, also known as short-term memory, holds information that is relevant to performance and ensures task focus. It's what allows us to remember and retrieve information from an early step of a long task, such as long-division math. "In these math problems students have to perform subtraction and division, and if you're trying to hold information in your memory and you start worrying about performance, then you can't use your entire mental capacity to do the math," Beilock explained. The study analyzed 93 undergraduate students from Michigan State University to determine their working-memory capacities. The students were divided into two groups, a high working-memory group (HWM) and a low working-memory group (LWM). Each person was given a 24-problem math test in a low-pressure environment. The HWM group did substantially better. Then the two groups were given the same test, but were told that they were part of a "team effort" and an improved score would earn the team a cash reward. They were also told their performance was being evaluated by math professors. Under this higher, real world pressure situation, the HWM group's score dropped to that of the LWM group, which was not affected by the increased pressure. Since working memory is known to predict many higher-level brain functions, the research calls into question the ability of high-pressure tests such as the SAT, GRE, LSAT, and MCAT to accurately gauge who will succeed in future academic endeavors.

Re:Just in case... (article text)

[jdogg82]

My bad... I wasn't aware of this practice (newbie).

hmm...

[Daneurysm]

I don't know how to feel about this...

I'm most certainly a 'geek', by all measures. I can't help but become totally immersed in whatever I find interesting...in depth and breadth.

However, I've always been noted for my ability to work best under pressure--without the pressure I either get nothing accomplished or I 'wander aimlessly forever'...I'm sure many of you can identify.

However, I'm an 'undercover.' Nobody I meet ever suspects that I have held engineer positions, owned my own business or spent multiple hours a day researching (anything of interest) in painful depth.

To sum it up, I think (without RTFA, admittedly) I think that it's far to dynamic of a subject to boil down to black-n-whites such as this.

But then again, perhaps I'm just not 'one of those'..."those" being the majority of geekdom.

colour me skeptical.

-Dan

Re:hmm...

[obender]

I've always been noted for my ability to work best under pressure

It depends on the amount of pressure. Think of a three hour exam that determines what the rest of your life is going to be and when in case of failure you will be miserable for as long as you live.

On the other hand working hard to make your boss rich is not pressure. Pressure comes from the inside not from the outside.

Re:hmm...

[swillden]

However, I've always been noted for my ability to work best under pressure--without the pressure I either get nothing accomplished or I 'wander aimlessly forever'...I'm sure many of you can identify.

Yep, same here. And for me, it's not just a matter of an inability to focus unless forced to, under certain circumstances, pressure seems to make something "click" inside my brain and I become much -- for lack of a better word -- smarter.

That doesn't happen so much any more (ever, really), but when I was in school it was a very familiar phenomenon. I could focus just fine on doing my homework problems, once I got started, and I was always pretty good at figuring stuff out. But when it came time to take a test, especially a timed, important test, something clicked and I felt like I understood everything with exceptional clarity. Bits of the material that I couldn't quite put together before just fell into place. I frequently found I could do well on tests even when I didn't know the material well, using information gleaned from one question to answer another. My memory was always extremely good in "test mode", which was a big part of that.

I don't know if I would fit their profile of a "smart" person (I used to think I was smart, then I got out into the world and met some really smart people), but there are definitely some people who get much smarter under pressure.

Re:hmm...

[Moofie]

Why would you feel any way about it at all? The statistical results of any given study have no predictive value for any given human being.

You say that you're not "one of those". I say there is no "those". The "majority of geekdom" is an irrelevant categorization.

Re:hmm...

[Illserve]

To sum it up, I think (without RTFA, admittedly) I think that it's far to dynamic of a subject to boil down to black-n-whites such as this.

Well that's how science works. We come up with theories, these theories are always too simple, they get refined.

Working in the opposite direction, starting with complex theories, doesn't work. Those people end up spiraling into a futile world of overcomplex models that make no sense to even themselves.

Not a bad idea...

[MMaestro]

Actually when you think about it, it would make sense at least in the cases of high class grades, low test grades. Give anyone enough time with a problem and they'll either figure it out or at least come up with pages and pages of work in attempts to reach an answer. Give someone about two or three hours (college exam time) and even the smartest kid could be reduced to writing scribbles all over the borders of the paper frantically trying to find the answer in time. We've all seen the 'stupid mistakes' people make during tests (switching a 5 with a 6 or vice versa, 8 with a 3, m instead of n, i with l, etc.)

Re:Not a bad idea...

[bleckywelcky]

You know what else is funny? I can walk into a senior level engineering exam with 3 books, a binder full of 100s of pages of notes, dozens of reference sheets, and my calculator ... and still fail the exam (on a straight scale but still pass on a curved scale). While I can walk into an economics (social science requirement) class with nothing but my pencil and ace it.

And it's not that you can't find the right information on the engineering exam, it's that the problems are just so complex that the amount of work and thought to fully solve one is hard to boil down into a 2 hour exam. Like 1/2 an exam will be to design and optimize a bracket that can handle certain 3rd order modes coming from an engine or something. Ok, I can slap a huge chunk of steel in there and prove that it will not fail (which isn't simple, it's just straight-forward). But that isn't what the prof is looking for.

I guess the prof thinks that if the exam takes them 1 hour to complete, 2 hours should be fine for us. Not to mention that he/she has been an expert in their field for 20 years and we've only spent 4 months listening to them talk. I'm not complaining, just observing. And this doesn't apply to all profs, some design very good exams (these are typically the ones that structure their lectures extremely well).

Ah well, I guess that's why we get paid the big bucks (I hope, heh). Maybe I should have become a lawyer ... hmmmm

Re:Not a bad idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

economics can get extremely complex once you get past the intro micro and macro courses. one of my international economics profs would give a 2 hr exam with only 2 questions. i would spend the first hour creating an accurate model and quantifying the expected results... the other hour going through the theory behind the various assumptions and then explaining what should be done through policy.

in fact, i would argue that economics is more complex than engineering because economics lacks defined laws and defined variables. there simply is no way to model the economy perfectly because of its enormity

Re:Not a bad idea...

[mbrother]

A more realistic factor is probably 4 or 5. If I can do an exam in 10-15 minutes, that's probably an ok hour exam. If it takes me longer than that, an hour is not enough time. I agree with you, that if it takes your prof an hour to do his own exam, that two hours is not enough for students.

Re:Not a bad idea...

[Mycroft_VIII]

A friend of mine graduated with an economic major last spring, he's moving to Dc in a couple weeks to for a government job he's been chasing the last several months. Blanking on which 'dept of' he's going to work for (want to say labor, but can't be shure).
He did have the advantage of an income from a minor disability he got in the army, that got him out of the army. It was enough he didn't have to work more than part time while the army paid for his college. His disability is knee related iirc and won't give him major trouble till he's much older.
It's nice money apparently, good luck.

Mycroft

Re:Not a bad idea...

[Jondaley]

When I was a teaching assistant, I think we thought that the TAs should be able to do the test in half the time of the students, and the professor: 25%.

I almost had 1st Post but I got so exicted...

[dj42]

I just choked.... I couldn't handle it. I've never had first post before... it just... really got to me.

W/low expectiations, mediocre results are welcome

[Ian Action]

I however, felt no pressure, yet came nowhere near the first post.

Read me

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but it's considered bad manners here to post the article text under your login name (as opposed to anonymously). People consider it a "cheating" method of trying to raise your karma.

i used to crack under pressure

[Anonymous Coward]

in a social sense. it used to be very important that other people thought of me as smart, as such i would spend a lot of time thinking about my answers. under pressure i had no such time to come up with answers, and so i would panic. oddly i stopped caring what other people thought of me. honestly gave up because it was just too much effort and pressure. i have since been responding accordingly and have noticed myself staying calm under time constraints. i tell people i know now that i used to be shy, and they can't believe it. it's zen-like. just let go, stop caring, and it becomes easier.

And THIS is what I have to say to that...

[raddan]

um... er... GAH!

the not so smart

[MrLint]

Not to be inflammatory here, isnt it quite possible that those ppl who are less likely to be affected by stress are also less likely to be aware of not only all the details, but also all the consequences?

This would seem to reinforce the behavior patterns i see everyday, ppl seemingly way to wrapped up in whatever has their attention span filled that second to notice anything else that is going on around them.

Re:the not so smart

[Daneurysm]

I, personally, don't see anything all together wrong with that. It's far too easy to get wrapped up in minutea.. It's far too easy for us to become so engulfed by all of the details of any given situation that we can no longer see the forest for the trees.

Business has taught me this. Sometimes (most of the time) it's far more beneficial to drop some of the nit-picky details in favor of the 'big picture', especially if it affects others. Professionally or otherwise.

-Dan

Talk about degree inflation!

[mbkennel]

These days, you need PhD to be a narcotics gangster!

that explains so much

[thelost]

i'm going to cite this in my exams

Maybe, but...

[MattJakel]

My school district has been trying to apply this (or some study like it) to the standardized tests that all students in the state of Texas have to take. Advanced math students (meaning those enrolled in classes 5 semesters ahead of the norm) have been given more practice for this test (which means less class time for actually learning) than those enrolled in regular math classes. Guess what? Everybody in the advanced classes knock the top out of this test, and when the regular students take an occasional practice test, the majority of them fail. You'd think that the school board would realize this and lay up on the advanced students so that we could actually get something out of our math classes, but apparently they aren't that intelligent.

study finds

[illuminatedwax]

They tend to forget periods under pressure

--Stephen
pressure of posting in front of 250,000 people

Smart response

[CTO1]

There's a clever and witty response to this article somewhere in my head, but I doubt my ability to post it in a timely manner.

Causes and time limits

[Bifurcati]

From experience in a physics course I could fairly easily believe that this is true, although we have to ask about the causes involved - the interesting question is why "brighter" people don't function as well under pressure. The researchers say "People with lower working-memory capacities are not using that capacity to begin with, so they're not affected by pressure." What the heck does that mean?

Just intuitively, people who are "brighter" tend to have much higher expectations of themselves, and tend to feel (true or not) that other people hold them to a much higher standard as well. So that probably explains why they get distracted by these sort of thoughts. I suspect that the other group just doesn't think about this as much, and just "do their best" (to use a teaching cliche...)

They do make a really good point about the high pressure tests (SAT, etc) that you have to sit for University, say. You have to ask whether this really is a "real life" situation - usually, you can go away and work on something at your own pace (within reason) and reach an answer you're comfortable with, and ultimately, aren't we interested in who can give the best answer, rather than who can give an adequate answer quickest? Again, within reason, and I'm sure certain professions (e.g., lawyers?) have different priorities in different situations. But certainly in physics, I know people who know how to do the problems - they just can't do it in a 2 hour exam. In high school, we had a great system - for the "problem solving" section, you could take as long as you needed (again (!) within reason) to finish it - most people didn't need the extra time, but some did, and did better for it. Perhaps we need to look at that system for other exams as well? Who cares about practicalities... J.

Re:Causes and time limits

[Taladar]

I know people who know how to do the problems - they just can't do it in a 2 hour exam.

And what about all the people perfectly able to solve these problems given realistic working materials instead of just the things they managed to put in their head. If someone can solve a problem in 5 minutes given he has the formula/detail on paper (or searched via google) he can't get into his head isn't that better than someone who needs 15 minutes but managed to learn the formula/detail 2 two days prior to the test and forget it 2 days later and could not find it in unrestricted (not restricted to the facts of half a year in school) books or the internet.

Re:Causes and time limits

[Bifurcati]

Yeah, very good point. I really appreciate having a formula sheet for exams, so that you don't need to remember the drudgery stuff, and can instead actually get onto the important part - problem solving!

Re:Causes and time limits

[behindthewall]

> aren't we interested in who can give the best answer, rather than who can give an adequate answer quickest?

Actually, I've found it's very often the opposite, in the business world. At least, when the typical timeframe of concern is applied.

This may cause long term problems, but the environment is not oriented towards nor motivated to address this.

Something I've struggled with a good bit, myself. Not too much fun, to eat someone else's dogfood. Or to be made dogfood for not simply passing the buck.

That explains it!

[955301]

So that's why I can never get first post!

Biggest change in test scores for me...

[Slayback]

Now, I'm not saying I'm smart, but here's what I noticed when taking tests in high school, and it later served me well in college.

I was one of the kids that could always be the first done. There were usually 1 or 2 others as well, and after a while, even if there's nothing said, there's a silent race going on between the smart kids to see who can finish first. Well, I'd be so caught up in the race that the pressure would quadruple the normal test scenario, and after a while I started bombing tests. I would just go completely blank, no matter how well I knew the subject matter.

I later said, screw those guys, it's not a competition for me anymore. Without the "race" factor, there was little pressure because I knew I would do fine given the standard amount of time. As time grew, I took more and more time to finish tests and would be one of the lasts done. However, I felt virtually no stress or pressure during the tests, was able to check my answers AT LEAST once before turning it in, and generally got one of the higher scores in the class.

Now in corporate America, you sometimes have to make quick decisions and then there's real pressure. I do okay, but I think others handle it a bit better than I do. However, when I have important decisions to make and the deadline is not looming, I don't feel guilty at all if I sleep on it.

Re:Biggest change in test scores for me...

[file cabinet]

I tended to do this as well.. I never really did well on tests though.. just wanted to finish them.. get them over witih.. I also have a very hard time doing multiple choice tests. just too many choices[especially worse if I don't know the material].

I wonder what this says...

[PsiPsiStar]

about the people who did really well on the SAT.

And what does 'those who are perceived as likely to succeed' mean?

They're arguing in favor of another type of test to replace 'high pressure tests' but they don't detail this other metric in detail.

Re:I wonder what this says...

[prockcore]

And what does 'those who are perceived as likely to succeed' mean?

I always thought that conventional wisdom said that the people voted "most likely to succeed" in highschool were the "most likely to be found raving on the top of a building with a loaded shotgun"

I love when self proclaimed "geniuses" choke under pressure.. because when they crack, it is usually spectacular.

What about....

[clean_stoner]

I know it sounds snobbish on my part to say this, but most people consider me to be smarter/better at mental tasks than most people (horrible sentence, I don't care). I, however, actually perform better under high-stress conditions. Does anyone know if the research done addressed things like this, and the article just didn't cover it?

Re:What about....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dumbass, the period goes inside, (like this.)

Re:What about....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a period never comes inside of a parenthesis. You use it to encapsulate information within the context of a closed sentence (like I'm doing here). This holds true in all standardized styles. Sorry, my English major acting up.

Re:What about....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, dumbass. Outside!!!!!!!

There's no irony here!

[TheGuano]

I love the responses. The headline is "Smart people crack under pressure," and every reply amounts to "I KNEW THERE WAS A REASON WHY I DO WORSE ON TESTS!!" There are so many levels, it's like a big, inflated onion.

Re:There's no irony here!

[mboverload]

In general the people on Slashdot are indeed very smart people. I think these responses are to be expected.

Re:There's no irony here!

[TheGuano]

Yes, that's definitely one layer of the onion. The unabashed and immediate self-recognition/assumption of such intelligence is a more humorous one, though.

Re:There's no irony here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's why I see so many errors in grammar, spelling, math, logic, etc. here. Man, the rest of the population who don't post here must be really pathetic.

Re:There's no irony here!

[TheGuano]

Nah, these guys are probably just cracking under the pressure ;)

Crack under preasure

[MrRuslan]

I think it depends on the person... I used to crack under preasure very easily but i have set my mind up to chill out and not worry...it is easier to say than to do but i did it and i see no reason why others can't do the same. Plus everyone should realize that everyone makes mistakes and nothing is perfect no matter what.

Timed tests are easy for some...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about those for whom tests like the SATs and GREs are easy to complete correctly within the timeframe? And given that time is a relevant factor in the real world, it seems that the ability to optimize the time/performance tradeoff is important.

That's simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that they said 93 students from Michigan State University. The ones who did well on standardized tests were already selected out - they went to better schools! :-P

This would explain why, under pressure, both groups wound up at about the same level. They were, after all, drawn at random from a population that was selected by the fact that they went to the same school, and both groups were selected in part by their performance on a timed, standardized test.

excuse or valid reason?

[travisco_nabisco]

I'm not sure what I think of it. I have found that the smarter people tend to write the exams more quickly, and perhaps, because they know they are smart, don't bother looking over their work. Not to be arrogant but I can agree with the article from my personal experience. All through school I have had a tendency to end up explaining all my math classes to half of the class and then they would end up doing better on exams than myself. It might not have much to do with the pressure. I've found that I take exams extremely quickly, especially math ones. Usually about 10 minutes more than the teacher said it took them. But going fast causes errors, not that I ever did poorly, but I could have done perfectly.

No, it's a veiled attempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

To explain that smart people aren't really smart after all. It helps lend self-esteem to the not-so-smart.

Personally, it's kinda true...

[kaedemichi255]

I think of myself as fairly intelligent (doing pretty well in a CS program at one of the top 4 CS schools in the US). However, I don't tend to do as well in technical interviews, in particular ones involving coding sessions. Although the tasks are relatively simple, the pressure of performing just makes it much more daunting. Personally, this is just one of my quips about technical interviews in general. They really don't let you demonstrate your skill set, as the interview environment (high pressure) is very much different from almost all working environments (loose and unconstrained). Just ranting :)

Re:Personally, it's kinda true...

[prockcore]

They really don't let you demonstrate your skill set, as the interview environment (high pressure) is very much different from almost all working environments (loose and unconstrained).

Oh man, you are going to be so screwed when you graduate.

It's not rare for me to be working on 4 different projects, all due within a week or two, just to get a new "top priority" project that's due tomorrow.

Lucky for me, I thrive under pressure.

Re:Personally, it's kinda true...

[kaedemichi255]

Um, are you required to write working code by hand in 5 minutes? Or solve impromptu design and/or theory questions on the spot? If so, I feel sorry for you. The interview environment in no way simulates a working environment. Granted you also have many tasks and deadlines to meet, but you have much more time and the flexibility to prioritize. You have resources to consult when you are stuck. You can multitask to other projects when you hit the wall in another. Does your manager stand over your shoulder as you quickly hack out that "top priority" project due tomorrow? No. In fact, you probably throw a bunch of nuts and bolts together to get that thing working, and push it out to meet the deadline, resulting in a sub-par product. Sure, you thrive under pressure because you can meet deadlines. Does that mean you can solve tough problems in much higher scrutinized situations? No. Does it mean you can design and create elegant solutions to complex problems over a long period of time? No. It just means you're good at throwing shit together.

Re:Personally, it's kinda true...

[prockcore]

Um, are you required to write working code by hand in 5 minutes? Or solve impromptu design and/or theory questions on the spot?

I don't have to solve impromptu design or theory questions on the spot (well, maybe a little, but they're not abstract questions, they're practical "we need to do this, what is the best way to do it" type questions).

But I'm an inhouse programmer. I write tools for our newsroom and write frontend code for our readers. Unlike other programmers where stuff they write goes through many hands before ending up on the customer's computer, my stuff get's used immediately. If my backend tools don't work perfectly, I get a phonecall at 3AM and have to fix whatever I broke. That's pressure. Fixing something at 3AM as fast as you can because the guy on the other end of the line can't go home until it works.

Every web programmer has to modify live pages on the fly. Sure we have development boxes to test large projects on, but it isn't feasable to do that for everything.

To be fair, after 6 years of this, you get really good at writing code that works the very first time it's run.

Anyone else work hard to CREATE pressure?

[Anonymous Coward]

I ended up with 3.8 GPA in comp sci and had to work hard to CREATE pressure (for fun). Anyone else? Favorite strategies were waiting to study until a couple hours before a final.

What a rush! F**k! (oh yeah, and I skydive (and have made a couple BASE jumps) now, go figure) ;-)

Oh please...

[Pollux]

I find your pitiful attempt at making a public spectacle of your pathetically feigned lack of confidence in your own abilites nothing more than a sad nuisance to this otherwise well-established and intelectual forum. ...

Heheh...that's why I love Slashdot. No problem sounding like an intellectual jackass...got all the time in the world to edit my own words to make sure they come out just right! Now if I can just find a way to incorporate a "Preview" button into everyday conversation!

Re:Oh please...

[ninana]

How about a spell checker while you're at it?

STOP STOP STOP !!!!!!

[MajorDick]

I saw this posting and I felt I had to reply, but I cant work under the deadline of being a first post but this is just too much damm pressure !

I mean how in the hell can I be expected to be the first post, I type 150 wpm and have an IQ of 179 but come on stop stop, stop.......I cant work under these kind of conditions I am going to bed.

You fail it,

[Anonymous Coward]

jerkass

I see dumb people.

[infonography]

"I see dumb people... ...they're everywhere... ...they walk around like everyone else... ...they don't even know that they're dumb...

And...
Some of them... ...They Post Here!"

"Smart people choke under pressure"?

[TheOriginalRevdoc]

Hell no, they don't.

RTFA. People with better short-term memories tend to perform less well under pressure than others.

"Short-term memory" is not "intelligence".

I know, I know

[KidSock]

I think thats why I failed the GED :-

Ob. South Park Reference:

[dukeisgod]

Ahhh! No way man! That is WAY too much presure!

Ah, now I get it..

[PsiPsiStar]

This would explain why stupid people tend to get 'first posts.'

Re:Ah, now I get it..

[Kris_J]

Perhaps.

A great excuse.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I did crappy on my SATs and couldn't make it into a college, but hey, it's because I'm smart! But let's get real, dude, do you want fries with that?

Creativity/Intuition

[Rostin]

Someone suggested to me the other day that analytical thinkers (usually the people considered "smart") do comparatively poorly in high pressure situations like timed tests because they require the test taker to either go with their first answer or waste time going back over their work. This drives analytical thinkers nuts because they tend to trust their creativity/intuition less than other people and *need* to double-check, but are also conscious of the seconds going by as they do so.

I took the GRE twice recently and observed this first hand. I don't know how I did the first time because I canceled the scores after being unable to finish the quantitative part. The second time around, I forced myself to loosen up and only go back over the problems I really had a concern about, and I aced it.

Interesting

[prurientknave]

I didn't realize the GNAA is now trolling the self proclaimed slashdot geeks with 'studies'. Man, those GNAA's are getting good. To fail the criteria of an exam is failure. Let's not try and pretend it's indicative of great ability. -Either words have meaning or they don't. Double speak and Double think forever

Necessary Clarification

[Ra5pu7in]

Let me see if I get this straight. First of all, smart is being used to refer to people who have good short-term memory. Now, according to the study, smart people's test scores dropped to the same level as those not smart when they were under significant stress or pressure. Those who weren't smart didn't do any better or any worse.

My conclusion? A smart person will excel most of the time, but enough stress can drop them to average. Whoop-de-doo. Learn a few techniques to minimize stressful situations and, if you count as smart, you're way ahead of the crowd. Don't learn anything and the only time the crowd can catch up is when you're subjected to heavy pressures.

C'mon

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Correlation != causation

Clearly, one should recognize that people are smart because they choke under pressure.

Peer Pressure

[Neo-Rio-101]

I think this just boils down to a case of peer pressure. The geeks are having their abilities judged by other people and in this case math professors.

Socially untrained geeks are more likely to strive to impress other people or avoid getting themselves into sticky social situations IMHO. Meanwhile, all the socially adapted people just didn't care what everyone was going to think, and did things their way.

In essence, it's not the situation that pressured the geeks, but rather the geeks pressuring THEMSELVES when they didn't really have to.

Beat the system

[Wylfing]

On my first professional interview, I was given an exam in a group with (IIRC) five other candidates. I thought I did well, but I know I choke on exams. So I said to the interviewer: "Yeah, I thought I did OK, but I am a terrible test taker." He keyed into that, and I got the job.

Really

[abborren]

I choke under pressure; therefore I am smart

misdiagnosis?

[brad3378]

Sounds more like an anxiety disorder to me, but I'm not a doctor.

Re:misdiagnosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

thats what my shrink always says me, but i still crack under pressure, maybe i am just not emotionaly
educated in the best ways to survive in modern society or any society at all

but eventualy i will stop worring about that when i realise that maybe i am only another piece of shit meant to be nothing

Smart Stupids

[bburton]

....Thus they do not deal with stress on a regular basis.

I agree with you on this. I am in the US Air Force, and during basic training (a very mentally stressful time), I noticed that it was always the "book smart" guys who cracked under the pressure. I mean these guys got 4.0s in high school, scored perfect on the ASVAB test (not that it was that hard), yet they LITERALLY could not tie their shoes right. Needless to say the MTIs (Military Training Instructors, or "Drill Sargeants") DIDN'T like all that too much. Because of that, they flagged themselves, and thus drew more attention and therefore stress upon themselves. It was guys like that that the rest of us in the flight hated, which again compounded the stress levels for these poor guys.

I know a guy who used to call people in this category "smart stupid" (hehe). As in they could rattle off the quadratic equation effortlessly (smart), but couldn't dress themselves correctly in the morning (stupid).

But no worries, if the smart stupids make it through basic training, and stay in the military long enough, they get better.

Re:Smart Stupids

[bburton]

Sorry, Sergeant, not Sargeant. That doesn't set a good example now does it?

Re:Smart Stupids

[benjamindees]

I do quite well on tests, including the ASVAB (you're right, the military would be better off recruiting those who *don't* do well on it). However, I tend not to do too well when I go without things like food and sleep. Partly because of this, I work for myself so I can set my own hours, and have learned to cook almost anything into a gourmet meal.

I've learned not to rely on others for basics like food and shelter, because, basically, other people will always let you down. It's hard to concentrate on performing some high-level function when you're without basic necessities; and lack of these basic necessities is a major cause of stress. I think if most people would learn a modicum of self-reliance, they would do better in general.

Of course this flies in the face of today's Socialist/Corporate society. No American would survive if they had to grill their own Big Macs. The benefits of specialization would be lost, although I think with a high intelligence these benefits are more minimal to begin with. I still think most would be better off if we had to rely more on ourselves, at least those of us with a level of intelligence worth salvaging.

The military is a great example. I won't ever join, because it would be a waste of time for me. Despite the "army of one" bullshit, there is no level of self-reliance, aside from sometimes protecting your own ass. You are expected to rely on others for most basic elements of survival, from basic judgement (being told what to do every waking minute) to sometimes even your safety. The only post I might possibly do well at is as a sniper. You should suggest sending those "smart-stupids" into sniper training.

Re:Smart Stupids

[Anonymous Coward]

dumbass

Re:Smart Stupids

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean if stay in the military long enough, they get dull like the rest of you?

Re:Smart Stupids

[Moofie]

"It was guys like that that the rest of us in the flight hated, which again compounded the stress levels for these poor guys."

If you understand what the problem was, and why the DIs were doing what they were doing, why did you hate those guys? The DIs job is to identify those people and hit them until they are ready to break. The DIs are good at their job. The people break. So you hate them?

Huh?

Re:Smart Stupids

[Anonymous Coward]

He was in the Air Force, not the military.

Re:Smart Stupids

[bburton]

I would say "loosen up."

Contrary to popular belief, the military can't change who you are.

Re:Smart Stupids

[bburton]

If you understand what the problem was, and why the DIs were doing what they were doing, why did you hate those guys?

Because they made it harder for the rest of us. Remember that it was a stressful time for everyone there, and we were all a team. So one guy screwing up was a problem for all of us. I understood how the guy was feeling. We all tried to help the guy. He didn't listen; couldn't cope. Everyone else ends up carrying this guy and his responsibilities, which puts more stress on you. I had (still have) a hard time understanding why some people can't fold a T-shirt correctly, or lace their boots right. Everything we did in Basic was shown and explained to us; we even had a manual with procedures in it!

I sympathize with with the "smart stupids" (and I mean that in a good way). I feel bad they never learned common sense. The military isn't for everyone.

Re:Smart Stupids

[Anonymous Coward]

If you understand what the problem was, and why the DIs were doing what they were doing, why did you hate those guys?

It's always refreshing to talk with somebody who has no clue about the military life.. and I mean that. Basically, the services (I was active duty army for six years) work on the concept of very high levels of group cohesion. If one of you screw up, you ALL get hammered for it, just like in combat. All it takes is one mistake on the part of an individual to put the entire unit at risk.

Some examples:

I was in a platoon (about 64 guys) practicing "Inspection Arms" and performed one motion about 1/2 second too late. That cost us all about three minutes of getting yelled at while in the front leaning rest position (top of a pushup).

One guy was on the range, and somehow left one live 5.56mm round in his trouser pocket (which should have been turned in to the ammo point). Later that evening (actually it was around 2am in the morning) he was doing laundry while on fire guard duty (there is ALWAYS somebody awake in the barracks) and put those trousers in the dryer. A drill sgt made an unexpected visit, and heard something clanking loudly in the laundry room. He pulled out a rather warm live round. Within 45 seconds the company (about 250 people) was out in front of the barracks in a rain storm wearing underwear and shower shoes. It went downhill from there. (Anybody who is ex-military, think "countercolumn low crawl in the mud for 45 mins). The female company in an adjacent barracks thought it was a riot though...

Football

[strider44]

Yep, I already knew my team was smarter than the other team. Here's my proof!

/. Pressure when making comments

[FunWithHeadlines]

Oh, man! I want to make a comment, but it will get observed by others. And moderated! By sarcastic geek types! What to do, what to do? And I had such a clever response planned, it would have really been dazzling because I'm so clever. Oh, but what will the mods think of this? Will it hurt my karma? What will be the result of this comment? Wait....I've lost my thought.....

Tests are high-pressure?

[Rekkr]

Since when do tests bring high pressure? I can sit through an SAT easily and complete it. On the other hand, if I MUST get something finished in a hour or I'll fail then I get really nervous and can't work at all.

Re:Tests are high-pressure?

[TheOriginalRevdoc]

Tests? Ffffft!

Try this: your employer's main database server is down. Because of that, the company is losing $500K in revenue per minute. The boss wants it fixed. You are the sysadmin.

Your time starts... now.

Re:Tests are high-pressure?

[jlanthripp]

The after-action report would be a wonderful opportunity to remind the boss about your budget request for a backup database server that was denied by the bean counters last quarter...

Re:Tests are high-pressure?

[GnarlyNome]

Blame it on Microsoft?

Does this explained why I screwed up in the...

[Kunochan]

...Academic Decathlon all those years ago?

The secret to my success

[glenfahan]

Now it all makes sense. I was high when I took the ACT and the ASVAB. The pressure didn't get to me, so I got high scores.

Windows Upgrades

[doodlelogic]

I don't know about religious, but was definitely worth upgrading from Windows 1.0 to Windows 3.1.

Multitasking ROCKS!

Re:Windows Upgrades

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I believe that I read somewhere (though I could be wrong and this may be just opinion) that with both humans and computation multitasking can make you do as much as 50% less work than if you did things sequentially.

However, the human brain tends to be designed such as multitasking makes you think you're doing just as well with each task as you would be with just one, mainly because it doesn't factor in timelosses due to 'context switching' as it were.

For example, if you're working on a document and playing an online game at the same time (some people I know do this!). You'll remember the decent frags you scored, and you'll remember how much you wrote. You won't remember the time you spent getting reorientated in the game, or working out which sentence you were in in the middle of a document.

Re:Windows Upgrades

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? NO!
Windows 1.0 has the best interface at all. It didn't allowed a person to distract herself from the current task while having others in background strip. I liked the idea.
The overlapping windows are evil too. You spend a lot of time trying to arrange them. Stupid thingie...

Re:Windows Upgrades

[Mycroft_VIII]

Doesn't fit my experience. Usually I can't do things well one at a time, not enough to keep me thinking clearly.
I'm usually working mostly on one thing while doing background processing on another. If I get stuck in a situation where I can only work on one thing I find it takes me longer (actual as measured by clock, not perceptual) than it would if I was working on that and something else.
Also many/most tasks have natural 'wait' times where you can do something else rather sit and stare at the food cooking, wait on hold, etc.
Of course In my case and some others it may be related to having ADD. Though I've also known people who can't task switch well, and certainly can't do a good 'context' retrieval when returning to a partially finished task.
My father once commented the most effective/successfull people he's ever met where those who could stop some task in mid stream and completely switch to totaly focus on something new that needed imediate attention and then switch completely back as if un-interupted. Both switches without any real hesitation.
I'd say peoples effectiveness at multitasking depends on thier personal 'cost of a context switch'.

Mycroft

Re:Windows Upgrades

[Surazal]

The ADD is hindering your concentration overall, not helping it. That's why they call it a deficit disorder.

And yes I'm an ADD sufferer too. :^)

Re:Windows Upgrades

[RedLaggedTeut]

I don't know about religious, but was definitely worth upgrading from Windows 1.0 to Windows 3.1.

Not for me, since upgrading from 1.0 to 3.1 broke the screen layout of the program I had for 1.0, since the st^D^Dguys at Microsoft hadn't bothered to include the old fonts from 1.0 in 3.1

;-)

Re:Windows Upgrades

[Mycroft_VIII]

Nope, it's called a defficit dissorder because it was named before it was understood, by a society that treats any mental difference as a 'dissorder'.
When I'm focused I'm MORE focused than most people can easily understand, but it must reach a threshold. This is very common with add.
It's really a different sort of survival mechanism vs. 'normal'.
A 'normal' person is more suited to long term action with removed (temporally) feedback.
An add person is actualy geared more to the here and now and can respond to changes in enviroment more readily.
The reason add people have troubles is because our culture is more geared towards start now finish much later.
You'll find add people thrive much better in jobs such as police or fireman or even military.
An add person can track and manage many more ongoing events than a non-add person typically.
So if you have add (barring medication) you should look for jobs where things change alot or require constant adaptation.
On of the easiest analogies I've read is the hunter vs. farmer analogie. If your a farmer you need to do something in the spring, piddle with it hours on end for months and then you get results, this is most of our current society.
Now if your a hunter you need to sit patiently for a while without getting bored then be able to suddenly act and react and reason as you do so for results you eat that night.
Each has it's place, but the add personality is at a dissadvantage in modern times because most jobs and such are geared more for the farmer. In the past when hunting and simular activities were more common the add mind was of more value.
When add/adhd was first being identified it was mostly becuase those with it were different and at odds with a mostly 'farmer' type society.
And just like many differences in mindset/outlook add people were assumed to have something 'wrong' with them because they were different. Homosexuality was once considered a mental dissorder as well.
Do some studying beyond the common missconceptions (no doubt re-inforced by the constant difficulties our current society creates for those with add) and you'll find a whole host of ways add can be usefull.
That said we DO live in a 'farmer' society, so the medication that exists has it's uses and I'm not against it, just not in favor of 24/7 use of it in most cases. Use it where it helps, skip it where it doesn't, especially in those cases where add is pure advantage. Give me an emergency in situation where I'm on familiar turf and I'll be solving the problems faster than most people can identify them, let alone form a commitie to discuss possible a study to determine if a solution should be investigated on a tentative basis or not (That's how SLOW others seem to be going in those situations).

Mycroft

Wow plodding mediocrity sometimes works

[gelfling]

And brilliance is uneven fragile and unpredictable.

We've known that for what? 3000 years?

True for me

[seaniqua]

I don't know if it is for the reasons cited in TFA, but this is certainly holding true for me. I'm studying for my LSATs (gulp... saturday!). When taking the practice tests, I do much worse (about ten points worth) when I am going against the clock. This isn't just due to running out of time (actually, I usually have some to spare). I think it's more about me thinking "Oh crap, I gotta finish this all in a half hour! I'd better take the first semi-correct answer before I check them all!" We'll see in a month or two how it works out.

on the other hand...

[Vulture101]

i am not a geek, my IQ is around 86 and i still fuck up under pressure, so where does that study leave me ?

might as well admit it

[vergil]

Got my ENGL degree and some honors crap on acid. Nothing like acing an honors class while watching miniature "Apocalypse Now"-style helicopter assaults taking place on the discussion table.

-V

NO, YOU FAIL!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And badly at that!

Apathy rules!

[russotto]

This study means that (assuming I'm a smart person, anyway) my apathetic, don't-give-a-shit "bad attitude" is actually an advantage. If I don't give a shit, I'm not pressured and therefore have more room in my working memory for task-related information, and I therefore do better.

So boss, don't take it personally when I appear to not care about the task at hand. It's not because I realize there's no reward in it for me if I do well, nor because in the back of my mind part of me would like to see the commissioned sales staff humiliated at the demo. It's because by not giving a shit, I'll do a better job. Really. It's absolutely true, or my name isn't David Leisure.

Re:Apathy rules!

[Pecisk]

Someone modded this funny, but in fact it is wholeheartly insightful. Yeah, some level of apathy EXACTLY works as cooler for your brain - so it can't burn out. And as always, if you will work right, you will outperform yourself.

If you're smart, you *will* do well

[agraupe]

This semester, I got 97 percent on my math exam (one grade level ahead of where I should be) and mid-90s on my Humanities exam. Pressure was there, but I did as good or better than my class marks. Perhaps if you're a neurotic douche-bag who's life revolves around getting the highest test score, the pressure will break you. Me, I don't care as long as I pass, and I consistently get 90+.

Re:If you're smart, you *will* do well

[doodlelogic]

90%+ in Humanities!

In the UK no respectable university would give that high a grade for any arts subject.

Stupid people just keep pretending they know...

[Anonymous Coward]

what they're doing.

You'll need to do well under pressure

[Anonymous Coward]

No one wants their lawyer to spend a long time thinking before finally yelling OBJECTION. The ability to think fast when a life is at stake is one ability that a lawyer needs.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

First Post!

[teamhasnoi]

By the smartest guy on /. !

I would have managed it earlier, but, you know. :(

I crumbled under the pressure.

Best place to apply this article is in the loo

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like folks just smart enough to know they're stupid, and with a pinch of IQ envy thrown in.

"Yeah, you'd like to think smart people vapor lock under pressure, wouldn't you!"

It happens...

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of years ago I was doing my end of high school exams. I was top of the year in almost all of my subjects (damn you and your chemistry 1337n3zz Gary!) and with the way the end of year exams work, everyone elses score was going to be "scaled" to mine. Because I was top of the year, the state board was going to change our final mark because they "knew" that I was the smartest and that I could be used as a benchmark / scaling tool (Yes, it is ridiculous.) Someone "mentioned" (read: don't fuck up or we'll kill you!) this to me and I kinda freaked... Ended up getting an awful score on my english exam - wheras previously I was getting a 95%+ average (I didn't drop a mark until halfway through the year) I'm pretty sure that both of my exam essays were pure shit. I just couldn't write for a full thirty minutes, and that *never* happens to me. The way the system works though, I'll never know, because being top of the class I ended up getting the score for the best exam our class wrote. (Yes, it is ridiculous.)

First Post!

[teamhasnoi]

By the smartest guy on /. !

I would have managed it earlier, but, you know. :(

I know whats wrong with you

[gfody]

if your an 'undercover', you're probably an ENTP. extroverted, socially adept. nobody thinks your a geek because at least a good part of your intelligence is spent making you funny, witty, charming etc. and everybody knows geeks are social retards.

generally the smartest people in the world are ENTP or INTP. E's are the extroverted smarties, I's are the introverted smarties and they make up less than 5% of the population (so they may not have had many in this study).

typically an ENTP will be interested and excited about a big project, but when pushed into the technical details gets bored and stops being productive. an INTP is the opposite, spends more time thinking about the details than the big picture.

however, some people can be both introverted and extroverted.. usually people who were the "baby" of the family with an older brother or sister at some point during their mental development had to revolutionize their thought process in order to compete for their parent's attention (throwing a temper tantrum is the example I read about). being born in the month of june would give you the tendency to develope a split personality as well.

anyways, these people are exceptionally rare. they are essentially both ENTP and INTP with the strengths and weaknesses of both.. sometimes your a social retard, sometimes your the life of the party, sometimes your bored with the details, sometimes you're buried in them. etc etc.

Re:I know whats wrong with you

[Daniel Boisvert]

That last bit describes me to a T. Depending on my mood I'll turn up slight preferences ranging from ENFP to INTJ. I'd pretty much written off the Meyers-Briggs test after seeing such varied results, but perhaps you're right and I'm just a nutcase.

Your comment about having both the strengths -and- weaknesses of both hit me pretty hard, though. I'll have to think on that more. Thank you. :)

Dangit! Ran out of time

[pugugly]

Had a call come in *just* as this came up and missed the chance to FP. Auugh!

That's comforting...

[andreyw]

I suppose that's sort of comforting for someone (me!) who just bombed a Microsoft interview...

Why, may you ask? Was it because I have no skills? Was it because I am stupid? No - because I was sick and I flustered during the interview.

It depends. I have ADHD, and yet...

[Spy der Mann]

It depends. I have ADHD (Attention Defficit with Hyperactivity Disorder), and yet I have a high IQ. These can be related, but not always.

Maybe it was my inability to relate to other kids in classroom that I found a refuge in science. Luckily, my math skills made me excel in science, and of course, programming :).

But to excel you need study and practice, it's not just genetics, and certainly, not only ADD. Not all people with ADD or ADHD are good at school - mainly because they can't pay enough attention at what the teacher says.

My advantage is that my father was a computer pioneer - when all the kids were playing around with their Star Wars toys, I was typing a C64 game from the RUN magazine.

So it very much depends on the environment surrounding people with ADD. Some can become geniuses, an others, common criminals.

However, you have a good point. How many of the great men of science have or had ADD? I'd like to see a study on this.

Re:It depends. I have ADHD, and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're so brilliant, then why do you still believe that ADD and ADHD exist?

My guess is that very few great men of science had ADD because until your lame generation, it didn't exist. Look for a crutch and excuse somewhere else.

Re:It depends. I have ADHD, and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so easy for you to claim it doesn't exist, when you don't have it in the first place. But I have experienced it. I realized it in one moment when I was doing something and my father said goodbye. I knew he said it, but but i was focused on something else. Then he called again, and i realized it.

Hyperfocusing is a symptom of ADD. But let's give it a more common term for you to accept it exists. "Unscientifically-provable easily-distracted disorder". That better?

Re:It depends. I have ADHD, and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are a asshole. Stuff your crutch up your ass.

Re:It depends. I have ADHD, and yet...

[lazy genes]

Adhd is suppose to gaurd a small percentage of the speicies to think for themselves.To look at things at every angle and search for patterns.The act of following procedures with ADD is imposible. You are very lucky to have had a early interest in computers.

Response of a genius..

[Brian Brian]

...yes that's me. My response to this is... ummm. Hang on. ...almost got it now... Dammit! What was the question?

Uhh.. So we're all stupid?

[ThoreauHD]

Ignorance really is bliss.

Thinking under pressure... military-style

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

This article made me laugh. I have an anecdote.

See, although I have an Ivy League degree, psych major and CS minor... I'm supposedly quite a smart guy... I pulled a stint in the US Air Force, once upon a time. Let me tell you a little bit about Air Force basic training.

When you're in USAF Basic Training (Lackland AFB, Texas), one of the duties you are expected to perform regularly (and impeccably) is Dorm Guard.

You'd do Dorm Guard for a half hour. Your turn could come at any time of day. If it was in the middle of the night, the previous Dorm Guard would wake you, you'd go relieve him, and then after you were done yawning for a half hour (hopefully unchallenged) you'd wake up the next one and go back to bed.

Your duties as Dorm Guard include making sure that anyone who wants in, has the proper identification/authorization, before you open the door. Now, there is a series of steps you have to follow, before you can let someone in. All of these are taken very seriously. These steps are posted *right next to the door*, and the TI even tells you to go ahead and (still with me?) ...put your finger... on each step, as you go through the security checks. I know, you're thinking, what is so damn hard about that.

If you failed to perform the steps properly, bad things would happen. You would get a U ("unsatisfactory") for the week, which was bad because 3 U's and you'd get "recycled", meaning you'd have to switch to a different "flight" and stay in Basic longer. Oh, and you'd get quite an ass-chewing. In front of everyone. Suffice it to say there was a lot of pressure not to mess up, but that wasn't the worst of it...

These TI's would pull all sorts of shit to try to trip you up. They'd show an ID with Mickey Mouse as the picture. With a dead-serious face, they'd show an ID with a false name like Ivana Koknballs (you couldn't laugh). They'd show an ID that expired in 1945. Etc. And if you were a little slow, fuggedaboutit. The worst thing, they'd start yelling. Sometimes even kicking the door. "Let me the hell in! LET ME IN! Airman, I'm going to send you to KP duty all weekend unless you open this door RIGHT THIS GODDAMN SECOND!" You were supposed to ignore it and do the steps. If you were successful, you were fine.

It was the yelling that got to me. Every time. Even though the steps were RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE, when a TI with the wide-brimmed hat is there, yelling red-faced and going full-force at the door, and you have to be firm and check all these things... I would constantly fuck it up. And then the REAL ass-chewing began. It got to a point where I would trade Dorm Guard for other duties- which was also a general Basic Training strategy to keep your nose clean- trade what you're good at for what you're not.

Anyway, I still got recycled for 2 weeks, eventually. But after that I was fine. Sure taught me that being a smartypants was NOT everything...

Re:Thinking under pressure... military-style

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent point.
All these tests are trying to find the smartest people but using the wrong tools. The military does not value or need creative thinkers at the grunt level, they need people that will NOT think or try to see the situation from different angles, but REACT AS TRAINED no matter who's shooting at them.
So their methods are exactly what they need.

The research mentioned in the article says that applying pressure during the thinking/creative process will NOT result in the most creative/smart/imaginative people getting the best scores, which is the supposedly the purpose of the test.
Incidentally, I usually get pretty good scores in tests that have many fairly easy questions, but have a hard time if I have to REALLY think. It doesn't mean I'm smart(er), just that I do find that pressure does impair my creativity.

Re:Thinking under pressure... military-style

[dcw3]

I went through the same basic training as the parent back in '77. The only people I saw having serious trouble were those who took it very seriously. There was nothing really difficult (except the time I had 18hrs of KP...not punishment, but as a task). Even the PT was easy...we only had to run 1.5 miles in under 14:30 (which I can still easily do 28 yrs later). The hard part was keeping a straight face while the TI was chewing your ass, because 99% of the time it was just to get a reaction out of you, and for something truely trivial. I'm certain that all those TIs go and yuck it up every day with their friends/family about how they got some poor 18 yr old to wet his pants that day. All in all, the experience was a blast though, and it enabled me to get the Vietnam era GI bill (couldn't afford college after high school), nearly a year of computer tech training, and some great European travel.

Re:Thinking under pressure... military-style

[ivrcti]

But the opposite is true of their officers. As a famous Russian general once said, "The only thing you be certain about American tactics, is that they will not be followed." If you can think when the pucker factor gets really tight, then you're definitely Infantry officer material.

Re:Thinking under pressure... military-style

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm active duty air force. My job, believe it or not, is programming. I had no trouble in basic training. Once I learned the position I was able to take the pressure.

I remember one time an instructor was going through my wall locker and he was like "Did you even clip this field jacket for strings?!" I said "no sir!" He appreciated my honesty. Then he went my duffel bag and the laundry mark was in the wrong place. "Hey! is THIS the right place for the LAUNDRY MARK!?" "yes sir!" "Are you SURE?!" "Yes sir!" He ended up checking with another instructor, coming back, and telling me how to fix it. All without yelling.

Basically they find an insecurity you have and exploit it. I found the best cure for that was confidence in what you do.

And just a fun anecdote: I was an element leader, and I had this goofy guy from Minesota in my element. I told him to go on dorm guard, but he was afraid. So I said "It's no problem, just read the sign. Read the sign and you won't have any problems." So a male calls up on the intercom and he replies "Sir/Ma'am may I help you?" HOLY SHIT "what did you just say stupid?!?" and he said it again "sir/ma'am may I help you." He cracked under pressure but wasn't that bright to begin with...

Re:Thinking under pressure... military-style

[Just Some Guy]

In my Navy boot camp quarters, my company commander's boss was a raging jerk (at least, toward us), but his boss was a pretty laid-back guy. One day, while guarding the front door, The Jerk yelled and screamed at me to let him in. I passed, but immediately after I was relieved I was ordered to come to the "staff lounge". This is almost verbatim:

The Jerk: [drops a ruler on the ground] Recruit, would you please pick up my ruler?
His Boss: You don't have to do that, recruit.
Jerk: I said, pick up my ruler.
Boss: Don't do it, recruit.
Jerk: IF YOU DON'T PICK UP MY C$#!$C#@! RULER, I'LL $$#@$ KILL YOU!
Boss: I'm giving you a direct order: don't do it.
[repeat for about 2 minutes]
Jerk: [suddenly calm] Recruit, do you like me?
[rest of room: silence and quiet giggles]
Me: SIR! I BOTH FEAR AND RESPECT YOU SIR!
Jerk: GET THE $#@() OUT OF HERE!
[rest of room: hysterical laughter]

I have no idea where I came up with that, but I'd swear on a bible that it happened pretty much exactly that way. That night, I learned that I do OK under pressure.

Re:Thinking under pressure... military-style

[elpapacito]

If people that quit / are kicked the hell out of (some armed force) are not that bright , how comes they don't go to die in wars ? Really, who's brighter ?

Re:Thinking under pressure... military-style

[arkane1234]

To quote Patton:

Your job as a soldier is not to die for your country... it is to make some poor son of a bitch die for HIS country.

Not an exact quote, but it always brings things into perpective ;)

Re:Thinking under pressure... military-style

[Eivind]

Yes. That's an important lesson, that there is a time to follow the rules, and a time to ignore them. Learning when to do what can be hard.

My father experienced something similar when he was in the military. He was posted as a guard at some exersize, and the stated rule was that only people knowing the code-word and presenting valid id should be allowed to enter.

So, it is late and this major shows up. "Stop", my father says, "Name and ID please." The major complies. "Code-word ?"

Offcourse the major didn't know it. He was bringing new instructions for next days exersize. He also was short of temper and started to shout around before proceeding to ignore my father, wanting to climb the gate and enter the camp anyway.

My father yelled "Stop, or I'll shoot." (as per instructions) and stepped on the button for silent alarm, then, three seconds later as the major still wouldn't stop his advance, he shot over the majors head, repeated the order to stop and sounded the loud alarm.

Rurned out the major really *was* bringing the orders for next day. He was also genuinely pissed that my father wouldn't accept this, seeing as he had presented valid id and all. My father was sure he was in real trouble now.

Turned out not to be the case. Instead the commanding officer asked him why he didn't shoot the major. "That, Sir, was the next step on my list." my father replied. Needless to say my father was totally in the clear and instead the major was the one in somewhat deep shit.

In the oposite direction children sometimes die in fires because they do not know that if it's burning, and you can't get out you're freaking *allowed* to break the windows by say throwing a chair trough them.

You just hit the bullseye.

[Spy der Mann]

I'm telling this from experience. I remember that some the hardest times I had was having bad grades. My parents usually said: "If you were stupid, we would understand, but you're not. You're a very smart kid". So, because I was smart, whenever I failed, I became something WORSE than stupid. I became USELESS.

In other words, it was (according to their twisted logic) MY FAULT that I failed. I had to carry that burden for a long time.

So, if anybody here is going to be a parent, please. Do NOT pressure your children. You'll regret later. Oh yes, you will.

Re:You just hit the bullseye.

[lsmeg]

So, if anybody here is going to be a parent, please. Do NOT pressure your children. You'll regret later. Oh yes, you will.

For some reason when I read this, I picture you standing over your parents, who have just been hacked to bits.

"I may be useless, but this CHAINSAW wasn't! HAAAAAA HA HA HA HA!"

:)

Re:You just hit the bullseye.

[Moofie]

The trick is to apply enough pressure, but not too much. It's the part of parenting I fear the most.

I would have appreciated (in the long run) higher standards for my academic performance in school. I was very smart, but not motivated.

Not to say I blame my parents...I think they did a great job with me, and I understand the conundrum they were in. I do hope I can strike a better balance. If I had gotten in the habit of getting better grades in elementary and high school, I'd have had a much easier time in college. (Because I wouldn't have needed to work two jobs, because I would have had a scholarship.)

Re:You just hit the bullseye.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but how could it _not_ be your fault for failing? (Excluding any extraneous circumstances).

Re:First...

[priestx]

Have we forgotten a certain person from Jeporady?

humm

[pyth]

Do smart people drop below dumb people, when both are under pressure, or do they tend to level off at the same behaviour?

Smart people have fingers

[doodlelogic]

I'm typing with my nose you insensitive clod!

Rules are made to be broken

[Downfall]

I think you're close, but not quite there. The real reason smart people tend to crumble under pressure is the "rules" typically do not allow for the desired outcome. The people setting the rules don't realize that they are preventing the desired result, and the "smart person" simply implodes; knowing that both the rules and the people in charge are preventing "them" from achieving stated goal, yet they are expected to pull it out of their ass somehow, yet make sure that no one knows you're doing so.

The really smart people ignore the rules that prevent the desired result and then admit they did it after the fact :)

Soo...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the first couple paragraphs I gather that it is always good to be smart, but to be smart AND aloof (Zaphod Beeblebrox?) will always win.

My friend probably has this problem

[assassinator42]

He's smart, but doesn't do as well on standardized tests. BTW, what does saying I got a 29 on the ACT make you think? I don't really put too much pressure on myself about those tests. I hear some people study for the ACT and the like. I don't see how you could. Or at least how I could. But maybe the people who do well on the standardized tests are smart and just don't take them as seriously?

theres differnt kinds of stress under presure.

[Unknown Poltroon]

I deal extriemly well when it comes to a real emergency. You give me someone suicidal with a knife and a roomfull of potential hostages, a building on fire, or someone bleeding from random body parts, ill take care of the problem, and not even break a sweat. (All of which ive dealt with, ok, i got a little sweaty)
You give me an "emergency" which requires figuring out what 2 layers of immediate middle managemt needs to do about a server glitch, how this affects me, what the political ramifications are, and whos ass i need to kiss to get it fixed, i start sweating and hollering for help.
I think the differnce is under a real emegency, i take charge. Fuck everything else, if i am the most qualified to deal, i do it and dont worry about the fallout. Fuck you, youre wrong, im right. Unless you know what youre doing, then i let the most qualified person work and help them in whatever way seems useful.
In an "emergency" theres too many layers of crap to really function and get shit done.

Smart people choke on pressure, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid people choke on pretzels

Ok, was the article written under pressure?

[caffiend666]

Ok, real question. Was the article written under pressure? A deadline perhaps? Ooooh, there was a monetary reward to see what document would generate the most hits. If only they had waited until April first.... Speaking of which, do accountants make the most mistakes during tax season?

Headline is crap.

[LtOcelot]

"smart" != "high working memory capacity", but hey, it's easier to write.

That said, the study's methodology is crap too. Wow, "smart" people are more sensitive to academic pressure, what a surprise! A "dumb" person isn't likely to care that "an improved score would earn the team a cash reward" if he knows he won't be able to contribute anyway, nor is he likely to care that his performance will be "evaluated by math professors". Try using stressors that aren't confounded with what you're studying, people.

To see what makes the headline most egregiously stupid, note also that the "smart" group never underperformed the "dumb" group. What the study really seems to be saying (true or not) is that smart people crack under pressure, but dumb people are always cracked!

Cracking under pressure...

[RhettD]

While I don't like to toot my own horn, I manage to stay at the top of all my classes and consider myself a fairly intelligent fellow. However, put me on the spot in a social situation (tests don't bother me), and you'd think I'm dumb as bricks. If I'm in a social setting and I run into a friend I've known for years that my girlfriend hasn't met, I'll blank out and have no idea what their name is. Same thing with driving, I can have taken a route a thousand times, but if there's a driver honking behind me, it's like I'm a chicken with my head cut off. Yet at the same time, I'll pull off a straight 4.0 average for my fourth year of University. Go figure!

Bogus Study

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a statistician (IANAS?), but I find studies that involve under 100 people very very subjective. I think about how I performed under various stressful conditions, and I find that it varied wildly as well. "Oh my high self-esteem cannot tolerate this defeat" is a poor explanation.

Easy stuff is the hardest...

[JeffTL]

...especially with math. I know the quadratic formula by heart but am as likely to screw up dividing (or take all day) as anything. I seem to recall Einstein screwed up on the easy math too. But hey, that's why they invented calculators.

the mask is off

[Doc Ruby]

No, your post is just a contrived way to call a medical doctor and governor "dumb". Why does that get you off so much? Let me guess - you think Bush is "smart", right?

Re:the mask is off

[RailGunner]

Last time I checked, stupid people didn't get Ivy League degrees, so yes, Bush is smart.

And I wasn't calling Dean dumb, I was cracking a joke about how the leftist media fawns all over themselves about how brilliant the democratic candidates are.

For example, the NY Times asking "Is Al Gore Too Smart For America?"... when Al Gore flunked out of divinity school, when Al Gore looked at marble busts of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, and asked "Hey who are these guys?".

And look at the media coverage of how "brilliant" John Kerry was. So smart, he was, considering both sides of every issue, carefully considering each (while he waits for the results of his focus group).

It's a recurring pattern - Republicans are called "dumb" or "evil", Democrats are praised. And - it's directly proportional to how bad the Rebulican kicks his opponents ass in an election - the worse the electoral beating, the "dumber" the is.

Nixon: Evil
Ford: Dumb (OK They got this one right)
Reagan: "Amicable Dunce", Senile (won in 2 landslides)
Bush 41: Dumb
Newt Gingrich: Evil ('94 House Revolution)
Dubya: dumb

Compared to what the NY Times said about: Carter: smart!
Mondale: smart!
Dukakis: smart!
Clinton: smart! (I agree. My problem with Clinton was he was ethically challenged. And Liberal.)
Gore: smart!
Kerry: smart!

In 2008, when he makes another run, the media left will be falling all over themselves saying how smart Dean is.

Damn, now that I've had to explain it, the joke just isn't as funny.

Re:the mask is off

[Doc Ruby]

First, go check some Ivy League schools - there are plenty of rich kids from privileged families who are too dumb to earn their admission. I know some personally. Next, actually consider the presidents you claim are somehow misrepresented by the media. Nixon: actually a crook. Ford: actually a buffoon. Carter: nuclear engineer. Reagan: before senility, so in denial that he never knew what was going on beyond a script given him by handlers. Bush: smart - no one ever said otherwise. Clinton: Rhodes scholar. Dubya: obviously dumber than Quayle. The actual pattern is that after Nixon proved so smart that he destroyed Republican credibility by blowing his crimes, the Republican machine sent only safe guys to the office. The dumber the better. The exception? Bush Sr: the head of the Republican Party who handled Nixon's debacle, and remade the party. Who himself had to serve 80 years as VP behind Reagan, to prove he was safe enough to handle his 1 term.

Next, let's look at your typical Republican propaganda style: you post "an obvious dumbass like Howard Dean", then " I wasn't calling Dean dumb". Right. Next you blame "the media", when these men are actually obviously as smart or dumb as they appear. Especially Bush Jr: he's really as dumb as a stick, a cokehead fratboy boozer who's destroyed literally every venture he's ever touched, surviving only by being exploitable by the rich and powerful. He's clever enough to look good on TV, in a not very presidential way, which is a product of his breeding and careful handling. I credit him with being a perfect creature of the system, like Reagan. But you can't even keep your "Dean's dumb" story straight as you say anything to bash a "liberal". You're not fooling anyone else. For your own good, check to make sure that you're not fooling yourself. Otherwise, you're not just unethical, you're dumb.

Re:the mask is off

[yourmom16]

Actually Bush Sr. was only vice president for 8 years not 80.

Re:the mask is off

[Doc Ruby]

Is that all you've got to say about a post as provocative as that, in this contentious thread?

Re:the mask is off

[yourmom16]

yes

Insightful?

[BigJStudd]

Insightful..? We have a lot of bitter people with mod points on Slashdot :o

Expectations

[phorm]

Or it could be Calvin and Hobbes Syndrome. Anyone remember the comic where Calvin is happy he got a low grade, because it kept people's expectations down.

This is especially true in a technical position. People pile on more and more work because they don't understand what is hard, what isn't, and what your breaking point might be. "Smart People" often have more technical jobs, or take more technical courses in school, etc etc.

"Not as smart" people might take more labour-oriented jobs. And of course, the view of "smart" is skewed anyhow, my mechanic can't fix my computer in the same way I can't fix his car... we're both smart in different ways.

Re:Expectations

[irhtfp]

And of course, the view of "smart" is skewed anyhow, my mechanic can't fix my computer in the same way I can't fix his car... we're both smart in different ways.

Umm, I think you're confusing intelligence with training.

Re:Expectations

[AlaskanUnderachiever]

So you're saying repairing a complex machine with dozens of possible failure points in a moderate amount of time doesn't require intelligence?

Re:Expectations

[Tim C]

People pile on more and more work because they don't understand what is hard, what isn't, and what your breaking point might be.

Actually, that's a fairly common management strategy to get the most possible out of someone. Keep on piling on the work and pressure until they screw up, then ease off a little. That way, they're working at (their) maximum capacity, and you're getting the best possible value out of them for the company. Sure, occasionally you'll push too far and someone will burn out or quit before you ease up, but they're replacable.

Ain't treating everyone as just another resource great?

Re:Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying repairing a complex machine with dozens of possible failure points in a moderate amount of time doesn't require intelligence?

All tasks require intelligence. Walking around requires intelligence.

However, there is a difference between memorizing a manual of how to fix something (even, say, a computer), and having a thorough understanding of said "thing".

See the Chinese Room Thought Experiment.

Re:Expectations

[Toasty981]

When people say things like that, I always think of The Breakfast Club:

Brian: So I'm a fucking idiot because I can't make a lamp?
Bender: No. You're a genius because you can't make a lamp.

Re:Expectations

[DigitumDei]

Any given car has a factory manual saying exactly how it work. Now I'm sure many mechanics don't need to have the manual to figure out whats broken and whats not, but training can make a mechanic who is able to fix your car, just like training can make a computer programmer who is able to debug existing code.

The coders/mathematicians/engineers/etc that create things (be they complex programs or cars) are the ones who require vastly higher intelligence and no amount of training will allow some people to perform well in those jobs.

Re:Expectations

[f()rK()_Bomb]

I had a similar situation in my last job, where the more work i did or the faster i did it, the more work i got. When i started dosing off and reading slashdot between tasks workload dropped! This caused me to freak out and quit.

I think the problem is the amount of people who simply do the bare minimum of work to get by is massive in comparison to people who just want to get the work done.

Re:Expectations

[Mycroft_VIII]

Actually that's a common failure of management who can't achieve the same results correctly.
The correct way is to give someone more work (and reward/feedback!) as you observe. If you're doing it right you spot thier limit BEFORE they reach it and keep them at the right level BELOW that limit.
The most efficient point is well below that limit, and is usually fun to be at if you don't outright hate your job.
And absolutely make shure they know when you are pleased with them, feedback is critical, especially when they're doing a good job. And if you don't actually mean it when you give them good feedback then you are screwing up. You honestly have to want them to do well for thier sakes as well as your own or at best your going to be yet another boss, and not a manager nor a leader.

Mycroft

Re:Expectations

[CmdrGravy]

I don't know about anyone else but I am perfectly capable of deciding how much work I can effectively deal with.

I have had some managers who would appear to be following your plan ( or who were just stupid ), some of them listen when I said "No more work now, that's it" others didn't listen which leaves you with no choice but to slow right down and make a point of not doing any of the extra stuff.

Re:Expectations

[The-Bus]

That's correct. You get trained on computers, or you train yourself.

Re:Expectations

[Tim C]

Actually that's a common failure of management who can't achieve the same results correctly.

No disagreement here - note that I didn't say that it was an *effective* strategy, merely that it's a common one. I also loathe the term "human resources", hence my dig at the end.

Re:Expectations

[kin_korn_karn]

You're wrong.

I work on cars and computers. I'm a professional programmer; my working on cars is just a way to save money and time over having work done that I can handle. I have the "factory manual" for one of our cars. There are things left out. There are things that are mislabeled. It's written poorly, and doesn't tell you things like how to get the damn splash guard out of the way without cracking your fiberglass fender so you can get to the vacuum reservoir that's leaking.

The manuals usually tell you how to fix the problem, and you're right that any grease monkey can turn a wrench, but you're still on your own with diagnosing the problem. Being able to quickly and accurately diagnose a car problem is where a smart mechanic separates himself from some slob who makes 20 trips to autozone swapping out every part that could possibly be it (and then another 10 when the parts he got break because he swapped out the wrong things at the wrong time).

People like to think that pro mechanics just read the trouble codes logged by the engine computer, but those are only reliable for diagnosing failure of sensors, and even if they're accurate, they only apply to the intake and exhaust systems of the car. Any problem that is mechanical in nature still takes an understanding of how a car works - and they're all different. Some are very similar to others (like the GM lines from the late 80's), but they still have details that you have to be able to understand.

Re:Expectations

[DigitumDei]

"Any problem that is mechanical in nature still takes an understanding of how a car works"

Thats training...

Anyone who works in a field requires training, even if they just train themselves.

Reparing an engine is akin to debugging and fixing code. It does require intelligence, it also requires training. The person who creates a new car engine from scratch, does the designs, or takes the designs and makes them work. Those are the people who are several levels up in ability, and they do require something more than just training.

Re:Expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but I bet I can fix your car AND your computer. After all, I went to school for Automechanics and now I own an ISP/repair/consulting shop.

Re:Expectations

[kin_korn_karn]

Well, my point is that high-level software engineering does not take vastly higher intelligence than debugging code, because both require a thorough understanding of how a complex system works and of varying technologies.

What about architect types who design a complex systems but has nothing to do with implementing it? We have a few of those at my office and they're good for spouting pure theory and little else. We've tried to get them to do at least some prototype coding, with bad results. They simply do not know how to implement what they design.

IMO theory is a superset of being able to code. You can code without knowing the OO theory behind what you're doing, but if you design something based on Best Practices(tm) and the trendy pattern/toolkit/framework of the month, that is impossible to implement, that's a sign of greater stupidity, not intelligence, to me.

Re:Expectations

[Doomdark]

I try not to do too many "ME TOO" replies, but here I have to say I agree 110%. And I'm glad someone points out the problems with fake praise -- to me the only thing worse than not giving/getting positive feedback when some is deserved, is getting such feedback when none is deserved ("I REALLY appreciate you coming to work on time, and spending full 8 hours at your desk... keep up the good work!" ).

The original poster was actually referring to a specialization of Pauling's rule of optimal Vitamin C doses ("double the dose until you get diarrhea; then lower it back down until you get rid of it, then you are set"). May work for those doses, but definitely not with people: people break (get de-motivated) fairly easily, so it's important to avoid the breaking point.

Re:Expectations

[Shotgun]

It's also the way to correctly torque bolts. Tighten till it breaks, then back off 1/2 turn.

pressure

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really smart, do very well under pressure, and have an excellent memory.
However, when I'm under pressure (to fix a bug, take a test whatever) I get extremely horny. Go figure.

Pressure sitations by my experience

[phorm]

There are many types of pressure. One is the "something unexpected happened everythings not working OMFG the main office needs this report in by TOMORROW oh shit oh shit oh shit."

In that situation, whilst everyone else is having a brain hemmorage, I'm usually decent enough at calmly plunking through various tests/diagnoses/documents/etc until a solution presents itself.

On the other hand, I and some of my colleages feel a heavy sense of defeat when dealing with certain administrative problems. That is, we present a good solution, but those that don't understand the technicality of said solution go with another (usually cheaper) solution that ends up being a pain-in-the-butt to maintain (and often less cost-effective in the long-run). That's stress pressure though.

Another thing that gets to most people I know is the "endless cycle" of pressures. That is, when everyone has a different problem and they're also harranging on you that they issue is critical. They can actually all be problems that individually are easy to deal with and not overly stressful, but when you look at all you have to do by day's end you foresee working a little over and probably having an apple for lunch while banging on the keyboard through break...

Define "smart"

[noda132]

I love the implicit abuse of the scientific method in this article:

Results: "People with high working memories are more affected by pressure than those with low working memories" (by the way, a sample of 97 people really isn't that conclusive).

Conclusion: "Smart people choke under pressure".

curiously enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

recently took the mbti and scored intp, but my preference in the introvert/extrovert category was very slight (and i imagine probably has a lot to do with being an only child and therefore necessarily alone a lot...). i find last sentence describes me eerily well. it's like having a bipolar disorder for focus, but i like to think of it as just some nice aerospace-style dynamic instabillity for the mind. gives me options, you know?

Forget Pressure...

[AdityaG]

Time of day matters. My brain only works from 7pm to around 3-4am (with a little help from soda, till 5am). I cannot get myself to do much in the mornings /afternoons.

This just isn't true!!

[commodoresloat]

It's just, umm, not, it's ummmm I... I ... uhh....

Damn! I had an intelligent and well developed response to that all thought out but when I got to the comment box my mind just went blank.

Re:This just isn't true!!

[Guppy06]

"I had an intelligent and well developed response to that all thought out"

Bullshit, this is Slashdot.

What about the idiots?

[Anonymous Coward]

So.. Basically idiots do just as well on these tests under pressure as they would any other? -_- People use money for the stupidest things.

I dont

[Handbrewer]

Well, I never choked under pressure... Du-uhhh wait..

Sweet!

[Jonboy X]

Score one for us dumb folks. All you nerds think you're all cool, but when the pressure's mounting you know you can rely on us idiots!

Art of Procastination

[krunk4ever]

Procrastination can be very powerful if used correctly. Anyone can procrastinate, but many find themselves running out of time, while others find they have a lot of time left after completing a project (which might not be a bad thing).

Procrastinating w/ a deadline as the driving force if used correctly helps push you to work harder and working more efficiently. How often have you started a project way too early only to find yourself wasting time doing nothing. How often have you started a project too late and screwed yourself by not completing it on time.

The Art of Procrastination is to find that "exaxt" moment to start and completing it just on time. Not only will you be the very efficient in progressing, you tend to also come up w/ a lot better ideas when working under this type of pressure. I personally haven't perfect the art yet, but I've had many encounters and often do find the close to the "exact" time to start.

It's fear

[MikeMartin]

I think smart people screw up under pressure because they can think of a wider range of consequences they might have to face if they fail, while those with limited capacities are oblivious.

I disagree, from personal experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm like the previous poster - I do absurdly well in timed tests. So does everyone in my family. The secret really is that we were raised to hold "multiple guess" tests in contempt and therefore do not view them as stressful.

I've found the same attitude since in everyone I've known who is good at multiple-guess tests.

Stress is great for mobilizing a physical response. It is designed to narrow your world down to fight or flight. It is horrible for mobilizing an intellectual response. If you're not stressed when others are, you'll look very good on timed tests.

Don't get me wrong, you also need brains to get top scores, but brains alone do not do it. Attitude is critical.

I should qualify what I mean by absurdly well. I have personally never failed to be in the top 1% on any section of an ability test, even while sick. The same is true for my mother and most of my siblings. (OK, none of them had to take a break from the SAT to puke...)

I do not state this to brag. I know that my true ability is well below what my scores indicate (I know plenty of people who are smarter than I am who score worse). I state this to demonstrate that my knowledge of what it takes to do well in standardized tests is grounded in experience, not platitudes.

Re:I disagree, from personal experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I do extremely well on tests because I view them as a chance to show off. I'm not a cocky person to be around, though I'm sure it seems that way, but I do know that I'm smart.

Different setup I guess, but the end result is I'm not stressed. And since I see it as a challenge, I usually even enjoy taking tests. Even tests that I'm not sure I'm prepared for, once it's in front of me, it's a challenge, I want to show off, and I'm pretty sure I do better than I would doing the same problems at home.

Re:I disagree, from personal experience

[Anonymous Coward]

The secret really is that we were raised to hold "multiple guess" tests in contempt and therefore do not view them as stressful.

Some of my lecturers have said that multiple choice is the normal format for tests at American schools/universities. Why is that? Are American teachers/lecturers/professors too lazy to review and score normal tests?

on being creative...

[Anonymous Coward]

then theres bosses like a certain one where one like myself may hypothetically work who told a roomfull of subordinates that creativity and organisation don't go together.... and the work area? design and technology innovation....

and they wonder why our brains break.

I disagree!

[Wescotte]

Anyone watch Stargate Atlantis? That Dr. Rodney McKay is one smart mofo and while he's a real ass when under the gun he always gets it done. However I don't think the average genius has his life at risk once a week. It must be some sorta bell curve then. Bad grade disapoint folks medium stress more likely to fail. Crazy life sucking aliens want to eat me high level stress go nuts but somehow pull it off.. Yeah that's the ticket

why do we have timed tests?

[sugar and acid]

Because it is the only way to actually test an individual about their knowledge without a lot of intimate contact with them. Now take home essays, projects and test are never all an individuals work but the combined effort of a whole study group.

The only other way is to have really small classes, and get to know the student well enough to understand what they know, and give a mark from that knowledge. This works in primary school, but it even starts to break down in high school let alone university. So in the end it is an arbitrary mark to quantify what the student knows against what they should know, spewed out in 2-3 hours or so. Not perfect but a practical solution to a complex problem, evaluating the knowledge of people.

In the end problem solving is the loser here as this type of testing favours people who rote learn and are practiced at operating under artificially short time frames, and not people who understanding the problem fully and solving it from the ground up and finding better ways of doing it.

This is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pretty obvious from the last two presidential elections in the US. The smarter canidates choked trying to come up with the right answer to satisfy everyone while knowing there are an infinate number of possible answers. The dumber canidate stayed the course, oblivious to the fact that he is dead wrong which seemed to please just enough people who admire that quality.

But . . .

[kai.chan]

But if they were truly smart, wouldn't they be able to adapt quickly, and be able to conform their thinking to integrate themselves with the rules and guidelines?

I think smart people tend to overthink problems. However, I think this is what separates geniuses from the everyday smart Joe: Whereas a smart person crack under pressure, a genius can conform their thinking to rules. Geniuses also don't overthink problems because they can see what the problem is asking from all perspective.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

This means everybody crumbles under pressure... Duh.

Not to sound egotistical...

[black hole sun]

...but I am considered "smart" by my peers, take that for what it's worth (which on the internet amounts to nothing). Smart or not, however, I definitley tend to fold under pressure. When I am taking a Chemistry exam, for example - I can do fine, except when people start leaving. I can feel the clock ticking, I get a sinking feeling in my stomach, I begin to rush and then my grade from that point onward tanks. Same thing with SATs - I take it slow, am meticulous, but the moment my peers beging to get up from their seats and I start feeling the emptiness around me (yes, I know it's emo) and the same thing happens; I rush.

Or another example, ths time athletically. My sport is baseball, and I play center or left field. When a ball's hit my way, a fly ball for instance, I really freeze up and get really nervous and I just can't "play inside myself" as my coaches say. When I am practicing, I do great, but when all the eyes are watching me, depending on me, pressuring me to make that catch and dont you DARE drop that...I dunno, I just hate the feeling. I just need to be in a sane, low pressure environment for my brain to truly function.

Re:Not to sound egotistical...

[atlacatl]

It's called excellence. It comes through, when under pressure. You crack, you are not excellent - Live with it...

I don't follow any professional sports, but, when I used to watch (on TV) Michael Jordan playing basketball, you could actually see the difference between him and any other player - He performed consistently under any circumstances - He truly, was excellent at what he did - Is he still playing?

Insensitive clods

[__aailob1448]

I just want to point out that having good memory skills is not the same as being smart. Sure, it helps a lot in school because memorization is a major component of current educational systems but hell! I'm smart and I have piss-poor memory.

I think school is to blame

[Facekhan]

Most smart people spend the bulk of their school years bored out of their minds and unchallenged. When you get used to putting very little effort and still achieving an adequate result over a long time you forget how to turn on the effort when you need it. I find that I have suffered from this problem on occasion although not at work because I like my field but in academic settings I will occasionally get a class that requires more of me than I am used to and its very difficult to get my effort level up. I find I do not really have this problem in a working environment because I have the extra motivator of money whereas grades and gold stars just don't get me working.

Makes Sense

[Starji]

People with big brains so to speak have an easy time going through high school and often college. Getting things without real effort doesn't teach you much, so when the shit hits the fan (or you just think it does) it's a lot easier to panic. Those who have to work for what they achieve can learn perseverence and patience. I'm one of those big brained folk myself and am running into that problem right now.

Personally I have to agree with this...

[Pecisk]

Because it is my everyday's life and I fighting with this problem all my life.

I am brainy. I do remember lot of difficult and smart things, I exel in computers, arts, remembering details, talking about complex human emotions, analyzing something and yet...

I have performed poorly VERY frequently so far. Why? Because of worries. Exactly. Because when the hell hits pan, I have very big problem to concentrate. Yet, everytime it happens to me it is very big fight what I survive inside. When I win, I shine and outperform myself. When I loose, well...then it is something I hate to expierence.

But recently I started to train myself on calm myself down from various troublesome situtions. And guess what...It works, it really works. Not for all kind of situations, but hey, it is a start at least.

So I would say it is not another stupid, "waste of the science time" study. It has some roots and if right team could analyze this, I guess lot of people would like to get practical advices how to push their performance without any kind of cheat, with simply self-training.

In other words

[dtfinch]

Smart people may be smarter than previously assumed.

Opposite Effect Observed Here

[metalligoth]

Many of my friends and myself tend to do poorly in a classroom environment but do extremely well when tested.

I know plenty of people with MENSA-level IQ that are like this, so it would seem to disprove the theory stated above. They all (including myself) have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder at some point while growing up.

Has anyone else here observed anything like this?

Re:Opposite Effect Observed Here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you there -- I have a good working noggin, test great, yet die in the classroom (surrounded by slow people in a slow environment, relearning things so they know....ugh, save me from the pain)

Oddly enough

[clnelson]

I feel no pressure to respond to this article....

Wow, gotta rethink this "smarter, better" crap...

[rpbird]

. . . all because of 93 undergraduate students from Michigan State University. Like I'm gonna put much faith in a study with less than a hundred test subjects. If they had done a five year study with 5,000 people of all ages, or even if they had concentrated on the 16 - 24 demographic; but 93 undergrads, just 93? What's next? "A detailed study of the characters in The Simpsons has revealed that all Americans are dumb-asses." Okay, maybe 52 percent are.

The difference between raw power and hard work

[teknomage1]

I think this article really targets those with a great work ethic more than those natural wonders. Over-achiever types are always stressed and are always afraid of failure. On the other hand there are those that are talented enough to the point of arrogance that don't feel pressure on standardized tests at all. They may not score as high as the over-achiever smart-types in a holistic manner because they tend to slack in work output, but they do brilliantly in the tests because of their raw abilities. So basically don't correlate grades with raw intellect because there are two components to grades.

Totaly wrong

[zenst]

If they are so smart, then why do they let themselves get into these preasured position's. SMart people plan for the worst case and anything that goes wrong with that is good news. If they dont and get stressed out about it then they cant be that smart. Although some situations are best not dwelled upon, I mean like chess you can work too far ahead you overlook a 1 ply bad move due to focusing 16 ply ahead for too long ;). True intelligence is the ability to dum the problem down before it dums you. Anyhow who defines who an intelligent person is, usualy the stupid. Its like comparing a calculator with dead batteries with an abbacus otherwise.

smart == high working-memory capacity?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does "high working-memory capacity" mean exactly? I would be hesitant to translate it into "Smart People Choke Under Pressure". I've know several smart people who work better under pressure.

From the article: "Working memory, also known as short-term memory, holds information that is relevant to performance and ensures task focus. It's what allows us to remember and retrieve information from an early step of a long task, such as long-division math."

Kinda "junk science"

[1iar_parad0x]

What it seems the article is really saying is that "higher-level" brain functions and worrying use the same memory space. There's a lot inferring going on here.

I'm not a logician in real life, but I play one on TV.....
One day while casually reading I ran across a natural langauge explanation of the 'Axiom of Choice'. Like everything I find in deep mathematical logic, words can't caveat the details of rigourous foundational axiomatics. For example Godel didn't exactly prove:

In any consistent formalization of mathematics that is sufficiently strong to axiomatize the natural numbers -- that is, sufficiently strong to define the operations that collectively define the natural numbers -- one can construct a true (!) statement that can be neither proved nor disproved within that system itself.

it's just interpreted that way (probably based on reasonable assumption).

What does sufficently strong mean? Does this imply any possible axiomatic system or just those based on primitive recursive functions. I'm sure I'll get flamed by real mathematicians here, but the point I'm trying to make is that taking rigourous quantified statements and expressing them in natural language causes ambiguity. Oversimplifications arise and precious detail is lost. Normally you don't deal with deep meta-theorems about deep meta-theorems so this oversimplification is harmless. However, in the world of science, meta-analysis occurs all the time.

Just for the record, I'd take Godel's simplification of mathematical rigor over anyone else's any day of the week.

In this case, a researcher notices that the same area where "higher-level" brain functions occur is also the same 'working memory space' for worried thoughts. Does this mean smart people can't adapt? Maybe the REALLY smart can? Could Feynman work under pressure? Did Von Neumann eat pressure for breakfast? Not all geniuses are created equal.

The article states:
The study analyzed 93 undergraduate students from Michigan State University to determine their working-memory capacities.

So they didn't exactly raid the IAS at Princeton for their study. What you didn't examine Ed Whitten? Oh, but you've examined 'smart people'. What I've found is that after you've mucked in the foundations of your field, you don't have to reason about deep theorems the same way. Rigor trains you in developing your 'intuition'. Thus, you've learned the hard lessons and the work of your field now enters into 'low-level' brain function. I've seen to many stories where the Von Neumanns of the world could perform massive proofs or calculations on the fly because they've managed to place what we view as "higher-level" brain functions as "lower-level" brain functions through practice. They created step-by-step processes out of seemingly creative thought. They've made a seeming complicated process into a rote one (i.e. a step-by-step; daresay 'computable process'). They learned the essence of their trade. Isn't that what analytical reason is all about, explaining complex and meaningful phenomena as a step-by-step, rote process. That's real genius.

Perhaps I'm just rambling, but I don't take all research at face value.

So that's why...

[mrv00t]

...I'm able to work well under the pressure. Oh, wait... -mrv00t-

So then...

[AvantLegion]

... I guess Donovan McNabb is a Rhodes Scholar.

Re:So then...

[Stalyn]

hilarious.

TFA is stating the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

this is total bullshit.

the core of this debate is your definition of "smart", and if you can't handle pressure how smart are you?

If the point of this article is (and it is) to point out that some people who have a "high analytical ability" sometimes fail under pressure, like any other person, then this is the most stupid post ever... stating the obvious

Common denominator

[fishbot]

There are a lot of comments regarding how smart people don't suffer stress so aren't used to it, or how book smart doesn't mean world smart, or all kinds of other hypetheses.

However, looking at these results it would appear that the basic fact is that excessive pressure makes everyone perform equally badly. It's like communism for the brain. Everyone is equally poor in a high stress situation.

Viagra.... Professor?

[vdoogs]

I wonder if these "smart" people have a higher incidence of erectile disfunction.

If thats true, it may give a new and profound meaning to the article title - "Smart People Choke Under Pressure"... because, well, if you can't get it up... you will be left chokin' that chicken.

Another waste of money and time ...

[Anonymous Coward]

As though all smart people behave similarly in a given set of circumstances ...

WHAT a bunch of BS.

You have only to recall how the crew of Apollo 13 and their ground support dealt with the failures experienced on their mission to know that SOME smart people do quite well under pressure.

McClellan and Grant

[Mammothrept]

Ulysses Grant graduated near last in his class at West Point. He performed well in the Mexican War as a junior officer but dropped out of the military in the 1854 for poor performance and then failed at several business ventures and became a drunk and a failure. Worked in the family in Galena Illinois until the Civil War came along and the army was so desperate for officers they would even give Sam Grant a second shot.

George McClellan was second in his class at West Point and was accurately judged to be a brilliant organizer. He built the Army of the Potomac. Unfortunately, once he had to use the army in combat, he choked. He was too hesitant. A pissed off Lincoln said McClellan had a case of the "slows" and asked if he wasn't using the army just then, would he mind if Lincoln borrowed it.

Grant by contrast remained a plodding tactician but never flinched under pressure. He did well in combat and rose to Colonel and then started picking up general's stars and eventually the Army of the Potomac. He never showed much flair but damn if he didn't grind the rebels down with relentless combat. Grant won ugly but he won.

Oh, and under pressure from Grant, the often overrated Lee choked too. Repeatedly. (See http://www.civilwarhome.com/coldharborsummary.htm/ .

Smart people have sample sizes larger than 93

[hung_himself]

and don't make conclusions based on one data point plus a control...

Sheesh...

Re:Smart people have sample sizes larger than 93

[mabu]

I was thinking the same thing. It seems these days anyone at a university can run some pesudo-scientific simulation and get some press, regardless of whether or not their methods are credible.

In one word, it's simple, really :

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfectionism.

Well that explains a bit

[yippiekiyeh]

I could never understand why when I was sick, I'd do so much better on tests.

There was a time when I was schduled to take an SAT, the original SAT before the scoring was reset, I was as sick as a dog. I couldn't skip it since I had already scheduled it way in advance and to miss it would probably cause a delay in my college admissions. So that saturday I dragged myself in there and did the best that I could. It was the best I ever did and I just remember not having enough energy to overthink the question and just answer it at face value.

So I guess everything now just makes sense.

Here we go again!

[cL0h]

Ever notice when a forum such as (but not limited to) Slashdot discusses intelligence, half the posts are of the form
"...Yeah I've noticed that x is true because I'm really intelligent",
the next half disagree, posting comments along the lines of
"...I'm really intelligent and I disagree with x"
and the last half don't make any claims at mental prowess despite their obvious mathematical fortitude!!
It's not sexy folks and though you say you don't care you can't shut up about it !!

checklist

[tinkerton]

checklist i made before checking the article. Pity, now i don't have time left to check the article(and complete the checklist)...

- statistically significant vs significant: The first means there is a confirmed difference that could lead to more research, but that can be ignored for all the rest. The second means you can take the difference in account. Usually the two are confused.

- changing the game towards a reward system: supposed you're focused on the task and playing with it with good concentration. Attempting to add a reward system on top of this easily leads to decreasing performance. People (and monkeys) start playing a different game to optimize rewards, and the quality of the work drops.

There is a nice anecdote from R Sprenger on how this effect can be used in a positive way: some youngsters were harassing an old man everyday as he passed. Sprenger offers the kids something like 5$ if they do it again the next day. They harass the old man again, and he pays. He makes a new offer each time, but the price goes down gradually. Pretty soon(i think it was less than 2 weeks) the youngsters quit because they don't consider the reward worthwile anymore.

- divided attention. The previous could lead to divided attention, but anything around you that draws attention could do.

- Last Minute Panic gets things done because you're forced to sit down and concentrate. I doubt if this leads to weak performance.

- concentrated playing around with a challenge. Better performance as the previous? Worse?

Correlation

[Tom]

I can relate to that, given this morning.

The point being that I'm one of the people who are natural problem solvers. Unfortunately, I can't "switch it off". So if there's a tricky problem, it haunts me into my spare time and even into sleep. That's not the bad part. The bad part is that I wake up when I've got a breakthrough (the solution, or an important intermediate step). That's not funny if it's early morning and I can neither get sleep again nor go to work to implement it (these days, most of my work has to do with other people - if it were a computer problem, I would and have in the past got up at 4 am, written a few hundred lines of code, and went back to sleep).

Stress at work is hell for me because I can't leave it at work. I don't mind having a full workday. I do mind not having a relaxing evening and not getting much sleep because of it.

This woulda been a first post...

[JackJudge]

but I choked under the pressure of thinking of something to write, guess I'm just too smart...

Know Your Limits

[ngyahloon]

I think the best way to take on pressure is to know the limits of what we can do. Then, we will be able to set realistic goals no matter what we're doing. Like for me, I am well aware I am not a creative person. I cant really create a software from scratch easily, I cant just look at a problem and say, "Let's do something different with this". I basically cant think out of the box as well as some people do.

However, I do know my strength lies in my innovative capabilities. I learn rather fast and so am able to understand easily the solutions that were used before to solve a certain problem. I just build on top of it. So, I just end up telling myself:
Since I'm not so good at thinking out of the box, I might as well make my box bigger so that most of the things I NEED to think about, is in the box anyway!

later that day...

[tinkerton]

well, the article suggests the attempt to multitask averages out performance. Smart girls(and guys too) perform average then, while average girls(and other sexes) still perform average.

So smart people(and the like) are more dependent on their ability to concentrate.

Turn this around, and you get an interesting question: are smart people smart because they concentrate better?

ohh, i get it

[POds]

So either your smart and you can feel your brain working and you score low, OR your dumb, can't feel your brain working and score low?

I'm confused.

It's not that simple

[Moraelin]

Why engineers want info up front can be broken up roughly into the following problems. Usually it's a combination.

1. Bad management.

It's more common than you think to be blamed for not reading the client's mind. (You should have just known that when they explicitly wrote "save when exitting every field", they actually meant "we don't want the info to disappear, but we don't really want disk access every time we hit TAB." Whatever gave them the idea that info just disappears in a form. It's your fault when they come back complaining about performance.)

Or when it's not outright "you're to blame, you horrible monster", it's being asked to do overtime to "fix" it. Because the boss is too weak to tell a big client that those changes cost extra time to implement.

I can tell you that it doesn't take more than 1-2 such projects, to give one the idea "no, you don't. Not again. Give me a good spec up front this time." Because anything short of a full spec simply comes back to screw you with a chainsaw lately.

2. Bad management again: changing the same thing back and forth, just because the client can't make up his/her mind.

It's been said that the most depressive thing you can do for example to a prisoner is to just make him do not something that's hard work, but something that's obviously _useless_. Such as asking the prisoners to move a big pile of sand from here to there, and then back to the same point. That "I'm doing useless stuff" thought saps someone's self-esteem and ultimately even health faster than if you tortured them or made them break rocks with a pickaxe.

And the same applies to software projects.

I've _actually_ been in one project where for a whole _year_ the client manager couldn't make up his mind whether he wants the reports landscape or portrait. Never mind that the program included a report designer, where he can lay them out in whatever goddamn way he needs. No siree, bob. He's not gonna accept the program until the reports are landscape... then portrait... then landscape again... then portrait again. Repeat ad nauseam. For a year.

Going through something like this will make it _very_ tempting to say "screw this, I want a signed spec up front".

3. Bad design.

Most programs are basically Write-Only. People give no thought to maintenance later, and even the smallest change means rewriting half the stuff.

Now I'm not a fan of extreme programming as such. (And please, if anyone feels like taking it as an opportunty to preach, have mercy and spare both my time and yours.) But I do think that they did get the basic ideas right. (It's just the turning it all to the max that I disaggree with.) Programs should be written to be easily changed.

4. Lack of test-cases.

That's probably the worst anti-pattern. So you most often have not only a spaghetti program that's hard to change, but it's not even possible to be sure you didn't break something else.

Re:It's not that simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you that it doesn't take more than 1-2 such projects, to give one the idea "no, you don't. Not again. Give me a good spec up front this time." Because anything short of a full spec simply comes back to screw you with a chainsaw lately.
--------------
This is a double edged sword.
I have been with my company for 5 years. When I got here, in 2000, the business units would be adjusting the project right up until production time. We had a "you start working on this, I'll go figure out what they want" method of working.

This was terrible. Everyone was nuts all the time because we'd be changing stuff at the last minute with no time to do a complete regression test to figure out what we broke by the last change.

Stuff would go into production, promptly break and we'd have emergency changes going in for a week. In fact, we had a never ending cycle of emergencies and fires.

We had no QA group, we did the QA ourselves. We had a user acceptance testing group, but they were just making sure the content was right, you could do what needed to be done with software etc.

The business complained about the bugs, and we got yelled at occasionally, but by and large, they were very happy with our work.

Fast forward to 2005.

In the last 5 years we have gotten:
1. 3 region development model... dev, qa, and prod
if you are a developer, you understand why 3 regions are necessary.
2. A dedicated QA testing group, who is really a bunch of trained programmers, who for one reason or another, decided they liked to test better than program. All are very capable programmers, and excellent testers.
3. A requirements process which requires full functional requirements, which are translated to technical requirements and set in stone before the project is allowed to have the first line coded.
Once into a project, the specs are revisited and adjusted as necessary, as reality dicates. All requirements changes are documented, and time added to the project if the changes require more time. If the users decide to add features, they go to a post implementation change queue, for once the project is done.

The net result of this has been very positive from a development perspective. We have project managers now who control the whole deal and we are following best practices across the board and doing things in accordance with PMI. Our post implementation bugs have gone from an average of 60 to 5-6 and, here's the best part, projects actually get sealed and done on schedule, where before the project wasn't allowed to close until the business was happy and done adding features(read: never, we had 4 year old projects active)

Here's the bad part. It now takes us 6 weeks, from the time the request goes in, til implementation day, to change a freaking phone number on the sites. If everything goes through process (which is now a terminatable offense to sidestep), it takes that long to get through everyone's queue.

The business is now going outside the company to a contractor for future development because "you guys don't move fast enough for us". Never mind the fact that we are hamstrung by process for the simplest of changes, but our IT organization has policies that must be followed. In fact the units are violating policy because they didn't want to wait for their chosen vendor to go through the IT vendor approval process. They just went out, got someone and are now using them.

Now we have our business going outside the company for IT work, to a company that will work without making them produce detailed specs first.

Be careful what you wish for. A detailed spec, if done correctly, generally takes longer to hammer out, then it does for the developers to code it.

Business users don't know what they want, and if you make them tell you, it takes so long that they are unwilling to use you.

They would rather have something, anything, now, than an absolutely correct and on the money product, 6 months from now.

Quality doesn't matte

What a nonsensical summary

[JPS]

So, some guys have "high working memory" capacity... whatever that means. This is never defined precisely in the summary or the article. And these guys are called "smart". And they tend to crack under pressure. OK.

Now, another definition of "smart" could precisely be "people that do not crack under pressure". It is very misleading to associate the undefined technical specific caracteristic of "high working memory" with smartness. When recruiting, we have people coding some simple program in a very limited amount of time, this is a way to figure "smart" people in our sense.

Also, working under pressure is mostly acquired through experience, be it for math or for dismantling bomb (and I'm not talking about movies here, some people actually dismantle landmines).

So I fail to see what is demonstrated here... Maybe the original article is much clearer than the summary and the summary of the summary ;)

I can't believe no-one has mentioned....

[cbyrneiv]

435 comments so far and no-ones mentiioned the greatest all time example of this, Jimmy Carter.

And then it bites you in the ass

[Moraelin]

Piling tons of extra work upon your programmers, and unrealistic deadlines, comes back to bite you in the ass in various forms. Of course, a true PHB won't see it, and can pat themselves on the back for "getting the most out of the people". When in fact they're getting the least.

1. Bad code.

The thing about programming is that there's at least 20 ways to achieve anything. About 18 of them involve cutting corners and making a bad product, just to keep that unrealistic schedule the boss gave you.

Making and implementing a good design takes time. Throwing together a piss-poor Write-Only hack takes a lot less time. Guess which one you get if you just mindlessly pile more work on people.

Sure, it looks like you're getting some extra work done at first... until it's time to debug or maintain it. Then you start finding gems like "oh dear, instead of making a proper connection manager class, they've just directly accessed and _changed_ internal variables in other modules and got their connection from there." Any change suddenly involves a lot more work, because instead of a clear orthogonal design, it's a spaghetti mess.

Oops. It bit you in the ass.

(And so far _twice_ I've not only encountered such messes, but had to deal with them because even the original coders didn't want to touch it any more.)

2. Lack of test cases, or even of manual testing.

_The_ more common excuse for lack of that is that there's no time for it. Pile enough work on someone to give them the idea "hmm... I could still make it if I dropped the test cases", and those will be the first to go.

And it only makes problem 1 suddenly cost 10 times more time. Because not only you never know which other module messes with the innards of your class, you can't even tell if you broke something when changing it.

True personal story: oops, changing the table model also caused all the reports to stop working. And it was only found after we delivered it to the client.

True personal story: oops, the program was packed by an overworked coleague with the test templates instead of the real templates. Some real business partners got bullshit emails as a result. (If you thought MS's inapropriate comments in code were fun, emailing stuff is more fun.)

3. Tired people are stupid people. (Not meant as an offense. I'm stupid when extremely tired too.)

Every notch you go above someone's limit, and every hour of overtime they have to do for more than 1-2 weeks in a row, soon starts reducing their productivity. They make more mistakes. They need more time to find them and to fix them. They see less of the picture, so each fix is more likely to break something else.

4. Lowered morale also lowers productivity dramatically.

Nerds are a funny breed. If you overworked a factory worker, they'd be more likely to tell you "no, sorry, this is as far as I'll go." Or just do as much as they can, and pack their bags cheerfully when the clock struck 5 PM.

Nerds tend to be more insecure. A lot are autistic too, so they can't even tell how bad or not bad the situation is. They'll go beyond their physical limits, rather than risk disappointing the boss.

Unfortunately, as they say, "there ain't no such thing as a free meal". The extra effort comes at the cost of tiredness and lowered morale. Either of which alone can count for up to an order of magnitude productivity, if brought to extreme levels.

Re:And then it bites you in the ass

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Tired people are stupid people. (Not meant as an offense. I'm stupid when extremely tired too.)

In a way, that's the whole point of the research here. Smart people under pressure aren't so smart. Personally I don't see it. I like a bit of pressure, but then I'm not that smart. ;)

Re:And then it bites you in the ass

[dubl-u]

Piling tons of extra work upon your programmers, and unrealistic deadlines, comes back to bite you in the ass in various forms.

Agreed! Bad (or just naive) managers focus on features and dates because those are easy to measure, and ignore reliability, productivity, and sustainability. That leads to the common phenomenon of having to do major rewrites every few years. This isn't inevitable; it's just the accumulation of a million tiny errors and mistakes. It's like tearing down and rebuilding your house every few years because you're in too much of a hurry to clean and maintain it.

My favorite thing about Extreme Programming is that it rigs the game so that managers can only adjust features and dates, not quality. And thanks to weekly iterations and a tight team environment, whenever anybody slacks off on quality, everybody feels the pain soon.

Re:And then it bites you in the ass

[Shotgun]

And you forgot the number one drawback.

Engineers who know the shit is coming, spend half the day reading Slashdot and then claiming that it's to much work to get done on time.

Not that I've ever done that, mind you.

Re:And then it bites you in the ass

[Moraelin]

That's one symptom of poor morale, yes, and one of the ways in which poor morale screws up productivity.

Flawed experiment...

[EmagGeek]

From TFA:

Then the two groups were given the same test, but were told that they were part of a "team effort" and an improved score would earn the team a cash reward. They were also told their performance was being evaluated by math professors.

Under this higher, real world pressure situation, the HWM group's score dropped to that of the LWM group, which was not affected by the increased pressure.

== snip ==

The problem here is putting the HWM group into a team environment. My hypothesis is that this group was poisoned by at least one MBA-type student who propagated the atmosphere of "gotta make the cash," while at the same time spawning the existence of endless meetings, mission statements, and other pointless endeavors designed at taking away task focus. The work was probably then outsourced to India so it could actually be done while the students in the group participated in a Six-Sigma study of why they couldn't get any work done. Since the work was done in India by the lowest common denominator, the equality of score between the HWM group and the LWM group is explained.

Did I leave anything out?

Hmm?? I am not Mensa level but effect noticed.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was classic. I would get all the most complex questions right but the questions that everyone less passed I got wrong. This worked baddy for me when I got a teacher who gave me a simple exam.

Note do poorly in a classroom environment.

Attention Deficit Disorder can be a miss diagnoses. Simple bored to death person on hands with a High IQ is extreamly disruptive to the point of driving a person insane(teacher). Many teachers don't handle high IQ people well.(My mother would not let me give drugs because I was fine at home because I was not bored)

Note in a average class I needed 3 to 4 time the normal workload to stop me from getting Bored. This was a heck of a load on normal teachers.

Exams are not boring because they are stressfull.

Only two kinds of people?

[mabu]

First off, I think the methodology is flawed in thinking that people can be broken into two groups of "smart" or "not-so-smart" people. That's ridiculous. They might as well have called the groups for this experiment, "nervous" and "not-so-nervous" people because that's basically what they were. I am not sure where the "smart" aspect comes in. There are varying degrees of intelligence, and no doubt those that are truly smart could easily deal with a pressure situation, so what they ended up creating were two groups, neither of which were ultimately of truly "smart" people. I think there's a high degree of extrapolation in place when you claim that high memory volume equates to intelligence or resourcefulness in a means that most people consider "smart."

Ultimately, this goofy study seemed to confirm that "ignorance is bliss." Thank you Professor Obvious. I wonder how much taxpayer money went into that boondoggle?

Re:Only two kinds of people?

[JollyFinn]

Working memory is capability of keeping things inside consiousnes.
There is big difference on guys with only 5 registers and guys with 10 registers for temporary values, for general tasks. The average is about 7 objects. Now they split it to TWO groups one with higher and on with lower capacity to keep things in working memory [VERY SHORT TERM] so there where test of that, it was quite precise what they claimed as smart. Capability of holding more things inside very short term memory. Probably tested, by having n random things come in few seconds, and then the subject would output the things IMMEDIATELY AFTER INPUT. Then repeated n times for different kinds of inputs and after a while you can see that average from 5-10 dependenging on person. Each person has few groups where they can remember more, because they have learned to pack things in a single memory location. Like considering a pair of number as single object or some other packaging algorithm to consider bigger objects of a one group. And each grouped location takes 1 working memory slot.

Re:Only two kinds of people?

[Shotgun]

Or you can use the test to hypothesize that when the shit hits the fan, everyone's a dumbass.

My life experience would verify this hypothesis.

I've always found I perform best under pressure.

[Polarism]

If there's no pressure, I slack off and never get anything done. If i'm under extreme pressure the job gets done flawlessly and probably way ahead of schedule.

It's kinda just how my brain works, no pressure = no incentive to perform.

This is what worries me...

[jpellino]

.. about Condi Rice. Seriously. She's far more intelligent than bright, and all that academic acumen isn't worth much when you have to go toe to toe with some battle-hardened scrappy leader of some troublesome faction in the heat of negotiation.

Re:This is what worries me...

[MacDaffy]

Condi Rice is nothing more than a glorified parrot. She has never mounted a policy initiative of her own. I defy anyone to find one original thought in her entire canon--both working and academic. She learned early in her career to regurgitate the tenets of George Kennan and gained the attention and favor of the fossils at Stanford's Hoover Institution.

I think you have it backwards about Condi: She is bright, but not particularly intelligent. Intelligence implies the ability and the resources to identify and to apply solutions to problems, both anticipated and unanticipated (which is why I think the article that started the thread is bullshit; An intelligent person doesn't have time to panic: They're too busy winnowing solutions. It's just like experienced pilots who say that they were too busy working the problem to worry about dying when trouble came along). Condi Rice is an elegant piece of work in a strategic sense. But she's crap when it comes to tactics. No imagination. No originality. Too much respect for the rules.

Welcome to Fah-q Incorporated.

[sl4shd0rk]

"You were hired not for your grand intelligence, and razors-edge ability to reason, but rather for your neanderthal like ability to take a stout blow to the head and still perform like the drone you were bred for. Please enjoy the acid blotter and model airplane glue attatched to the bottom of this correspondence (letter). Remember our corporate motto: The dumber you are, the richer we get."

my pressure.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I just crapped my pants because I have to take my car to a emissions test. does this mean i'm smart too?

But perfect and "good enough" aren't opposites

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There are several mottos I live by. One of them is "Perfect is the enemy of Good."

I've never really bought into the "best is the enemy of the good" argument. Personally (YMMV) I see it as an excuse for not trying. I prefer to think about aiming high: "good" is just a step on the way to perfecting something, and is followed by "very good", "excellent", etc. The closer I can get to perfection, within the constraints I'm working to, the better.

The important thing is to understand that you will rarely reach perfection itself, if only because practicalities usually get in the way, and that this is inevitble and does not represent a failure. What counts is that you did your best and got as good a result as you realistically could. Perfection and "good enough" aren't opposites; they're just the theoretical vs. the practical side of the same thing.

IMHO, whatever you do, you should never sit back and accept "good enough". Mediocrity is the first step to failure, in your own mind if not in practice, and if something's worth doing, it's worth doing properly.

We used to have a teacher at my school who taught A-Level Further Mathematics. (This is pretty much the most advanced maths qualification 16-18 year olds study for in the UK, give or take entry exams for a couple of universities.) When the school changed to a much easier syllabus in an effort to improve the students' grades, this particular teacher was having none of it, and kept teaching people to do maths instead of to pass exams, the way she had been for some 40 years. Unlike the teachers following the new syllabus, all of her students got A grades, without exception. Moreover, by not "coasting" through two years of education because the course was too easy, they maintained their enthusiasm and momentum, and were much better prepared when they got to university that the students who had just been taught the (new, weaker) syllabus at other schools.

Thought Salad

[TheLoneCabbage]

I know for me preassure has very different effects.

In tech, I'm so well grounded that I can be creative. Panic does set in, and often, but instead of freazing I just make a thought salad, and put all my ideas in a jumble, pretty easy to do when your bothered. The result is often hightened creativity, but at the cost of speed; it takes time to sort through much of the garbage.

On the other hand, I'm trying to learn a forign language. In addition to the fact that this is the first time in my life I've had to work HARD to learn something, thought salad doesn't help at all! When doing written assignments I'm the fastest in the class finishing in 1/3 to 1/4 the time of anyone else. But the second I have to speak I'm all stuteres and "Wait let me do that again". The thought salad get's in the way, as my unfamiliarity with the subject/language mean much more garbage to sort though, and a longer time doing it.

Smart people may simply be considered smart because they've developed unusal methods of thinking, that lead them to more creative/simpler/original solutions. But those methods of working are not common for a reason: There less effective at general tasks.

Einstein was almost 40 before he ever admited that it may be helpfull to memmorize facts and figures, rather than looking them up on demand. He had a creative way of looking at the world, that stemmed largley from his beliefe that there were central items of importance(ex: c), and the rest were secondary. As he grew older, and I assume more conventional, he had to accept that HIS way of doing things may not be best applied outside it's proper domain.

Now I find that the best way to get this new language in my head is to stop thinking, and do it like a dummy: Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat. And supress creativity as much as I can while trying to speak it.

Manager's Advice

[soloport]

Three rules to live by, if you're a manager:
1) Make decisions
2) Get out of the way
3) Be there

Managers who waffle at making decisions end up with an aimless and very frustrated crew.

Managers who try to dictate the "how" part of creativity go too far and the result is an equally frustrated crew.

Managers who operate in "aloof mode" are equally destructive. They think, "I'll just be so hands-off. They'll love me for that." But what they really need to be doing is removing roadblacks, quashing in-fighting, being a good arbitrator, just being available.

Hire experts, give them a destination and a compass, and let them navigate the waters. Good managers do exist. If you've ever worked for one, you know what I'm talking about. Work can be a real joy!

Re:Manager's Advice

[cavemanf16]

This is absolutely the best truth about the workplace -> find a manager that can balance those abilities well and you will really enjoy what you do, even if it's not your "dream" job.

My current manager is awesome at those attributes you described, and even better: he knows it. He's a cocky son-of-a-bitch, but only about managing and making decisions. He knows when to rely on others for the more technical stuff of our jobs. He's managed to keep our group together and increase our usefulness in our little space of the company specifically because he knows when to let us do the work, and when we need to be encouraged to "fix" those parts of our work which we're not as good at - usually regarding the soft skills stuff.

And yes, I really enjoy my job, even though it's not my "dream" job.

procrastinate

[Anonymous Coward]

For us non-native english speakers:

procrastinate
v. intr.
To put off doing something, especially out of habitual carelessness or laziness.

v. tr.
To postpone or delay needlessly.

I had to look that one up..

Re:procrastinate

[ivrcti]

Dude, this is slashdot. What do you think we're all doing right now???

Must ... come ... up ... with ... funny... resp...

[cuzality]

Oh! The pressure!

Super Bowl

[pilambp]

Wow. The Eagles must be a hell of a lot smarter than any of those other teams! Their level of intelligence is quickly approaching the Buffalo Bills of the '90s.

whoa easy

[Illserve]

Try not to pull your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

ps. It sure sounds like high school bitterness.

This sounds like a Calvin excuse.

[Legion303]

"Mrs. Crabtree, I failed the test because I'm too smart, according to this recent study."

Emotional fragility

[The Fun Guy]

The article points to the key problem of high expectations of smart people. When faced with a high-pressure task, they are more likely to spend time worrying about loss of prestige or "face" if they screw up.

Huh?

Oh, I see the problem: "The study analyzed 93 undergraduate students from Michigan State University to determine their working-memory capacities."

Undergraduates, even smart undergraduates, don't know nothin' 'bout nothin'. Oh no, I can't finish this 100 question test in time! It's a crisis! I'll look foolish! Ahhhh! My life will be over! I can't think! AHHHHHHH!

Once you grow up, and get some real world experience, you realize that there will always be another test. Even for the biggies, you get multiple chances to take the GRE, MCAT, LCAT, etc. Focus on the task, do the best you can, and don't be so self-absorbed as to get sidetracked stressing about how you'll look if you don't do well. For anything that's really important, you'll be evaluated based on multiple criteria, and The Big Test, just like The Big Presentation, or The Big Speech is just one event in a series of events. The article should be about "emotionally immature smart people".

That's The Way It Is

[lanevorockz]

If you are a smart person you recognize the complexity of the situation, you think in all possibillities that could happen. That's why courses of speach they consist in keep you mind busy while you talk, like you have nothing to fear just yourself. Dumb people just do things they don't think a lot so there is no problem speaking stupid stuff in public because they don't realize that.

perfect v. good

[ArcSecond]

Perfectionism is a problem because it often leads to "paralysis by analysis" where any solution proposed is not seen as optimal so nothing ever gets done.

There is an interesting feature of people who seek to maximize through making a best choice: the more intelligent/aware you are, the more choices you will have to evaluate. Probably there are many choices you don't have the time to properly evaluate, so even if there is one that meets your objective needs ("good enough"), you will always be anxious that you did not spend enough time finding the better one that is still out there, somewhere.

And any choice you do make will have drawbacks compared to ones you didn't make... so your satisfaction with ANY choice is reduced in proportion to the number of choices available (past a certain threshold number of choices where "more" is just "more" and not "better").

In any case, I prefer the writer's (or maybe editor's) credo: "Don't get it right. Get it written."

Say it isn't so....

[ShineyMcShine]

theyr'e on to us...(sound of car door slamming and then tires squeeling of into the sunset)

So we have a cache now? No, it's ANXIETY

[Anonymous Coward]

The points made in this article have either been dumbed down, or they're just plain wrong.

First of all, the article describes the thinking process in much the same way as we describe a computer's "cache". The idea that the human brain has a finite "cache" for problem solving is ridiculous.

What's really going on is ANXIETY. Us nerds tend to have higher anxiety and anxiety tends to impede clear thought (or rather, it can cause multiple thoughts). So PRESSURE = ANXIETY = THOUGHT IMPEDIMENT.

Just stick a nerd into a room full of "normal" social people and see what happens when you try to hold a conversation with him.

Ignorance is bliss!

[Anonymous Coward]

This saying always rings true.

Internet phenomenon

[Hrothgar The Great]

Browse around the internet for a while (especially Livejournal). There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of self proclaimed geniuses with blogs all over the place - people who admit that they dropped out of high school or college, that they can't get a decent job (or any job), and that besides writing diary entries, they have nothing concrete to show anyone that displays their genius.

It's a personality type. These people also complain at great length that the only reason they've never accomplished anything is that society measures their value incorrectly. Seriously, they are a dime a dozen.

I went to college with some extremely intelligent, highly motivated friends who got excellent grades because they dedicated themselves to their schoolwork. I slacked off like crazy and got a low GPA and barely finished my degree. Do I make an excuse that I'm anything but a lazy slacker? No way. Do I call myself a misunderstood genius? Again - NO FUCKING WAY.

Your ability to apply yourself to something is *important* if you are going to try to impress people with how brilliant you are. If you're not concerned with that (I never was) then quit making dumb excuses like you're an inventor genius and just admit that you're fucking lazy.

hmm.. this is only logical to me.

[cre_slash]

it depends on what you mean by smart. There is a difference between the Int and Wiz attributes. Smart people with lots of memory content, tends to use their memory, looking after some solution which they think might be useful. But the chance that you might have to use your Int, decrease as your Wiz goes up, and you become more dependent on the Wiz ability than your Int. Then if that someone suddenly have to use the Int attribute, then this is such a new situation that they simply crack. atleast this makes sense to me :)

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of academic training is to learn how to perform effectively under pressure: when I was in engineering school, I thought at first that I could not deal with the pressure, then I discovered that I could, and finally I became such a cool customer that I would not do any work unless I was under pressure i.e. a deadline and a gun pointed at my head.

Smart people crack under pressure? Smart people crack under the pressures that everybody else cracks under: a bad childhood, an undisciplined approach to the more complex demands of life, an abject fear of failure, an unwillingness to deal with a nasty and worsening situation, a lack of character, etc.

blacklight

That explains why my managers....

[Frobozz0]

This does explain why the middle management at my company was canned over a year and a half ago.

HWM is different than just being "smart"

[iamwahoo2]

What is funny is that for some reason everyone replying to this thread seems to think that this article applies to them because they consider themselves smart (and most of us on here probably are smart). However, most of us are probably smart in areas like math and science. These are generally not areas heavily affected by HWM. In fact I am best in areas like math but I probably have a rather low working memory. HWM individuals are the type that can usually read quickly through text and commit everything to memory without having to reread anything. I am sure that I am not alone here in being the type that once in while ends up reading paragraphs two or three times. On the other hand, a lot of really smart HWM folks that I know really stink at math.

Re:HWM is different than just being "smart"

[zzleeper]

You are wrong. HWM allows us to form ideas.. For example, you can remember when u re programming, and u need to "store" in your brain what you are about to do... "do this loop, sum this, call that subroutine.. ehh noo.. better i put this inner loop blah blah".. working memory is NOT having the ability to memorize things in one reading... that is photographic memory, which is quite different and does not indicates smartness

Re:HWM is different than just being "smart"

[iamwahoo2]

Ummm. No I am not wrong. It's just that everyone on slashdot wants to think that the only way to be considered smart is to be like them. I did not say that HWM has no value for something like programming and it may be useful for helping us form ideas. However, that is not how it is measured. Generally we define things by how we measure them. If you read the article you would note that they use problems like division to measure HWM. That is something that everyone should all ready know how to do, not something where you should be forming ideas or as others have said "thinking outside the box".

If you got a problem with it, take it up with the researchers who performed the study, not me.

And unless you have information your not telling, looks something up before outright disputing what I say. I at least bothered to google on the subject before I posted my response.

Please read the second paragraph of the following http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/research/caplan.h tml

Performance and Stress

[Viking Coder]

Okay, I'm sorry, but I think this is too good to not talk about.

In my Masters program, I took a course on the Psychology of Human / Computer Interaction. We talked a lot about human performance, and the topic of pressure (stress) came up.

She drew a graph showing that human performance actually goes up as stress increases, up to a certain point, and then performance drops again.

Then she drew on top of that the same graph for an expert in the field, and talked about how their performance goes even higher, and they can handle even more stress, until finally their performance drops off again.

Right after showing us this, she reminded us to get started early on our term papers.

I raised my hand with a smirk on my face and asked, "But, from what you've just shown us, shouldn't we wait until just before the paper is due, so our performance will be higher?"

She laughed and mumbled something (possibly a curse). =)

stupid still stupid

[iamhassi]

"Those with less capacity score low, too, but they tend not to be affected by pressure."

the article would have been more interesting if the title was "Stupid people still stupid under pressure"

Well...

[dtemplar]

It's still better than dumb people, who tend to choke all the time :P

working-memory capacities?

[espo812]

The article is misleading, I think.

A new study finds that individuals with high working-memory capacity, which normally allows them to excel, crack under pressure and do worse on simple exams than when allowed to work with no constraints.

Isn't the ability to work under pressure a factor in how likley someone is to suceeed? Sure having a "high working-memory" probably helps, but being able to manage pressure situations is sometimes even more useful. I think this is another case of matching personalities and skills and methods to the right task. I wouldn't want an astrophysicist negotiating my group's budget any more than I would want a benefits person writing software.

Voodoo science

[itsnotthenetwork]

Just another person getting the results they want.
This person wants to prove his superiority by showing people smarter than him will choke under pressure.
It was the results he was looking for, and lo and behold, the results he got.
What a waste of time.

When the thinking becomes broad, they tend shy awa

[Anonymous Coward]

well yes, because management will fire your ass if you say anythng about the big picture. hell, mention big picture a few times and you'll be blacklisted in engineering

then there's the seniority in thinking
if there is a problem with the project, the lowest engineer gets the boot, even if he had been pointing out all along that there was a problem with a more senior engineers aspect of the project. why is this? because for 99%, life is still fucking high school

Talent, your worst enemy

[pympdaddyc]

My old karate sensei every now and then liked to talk about random things after class before he dismissed us. I remember in one of these moments he talked about talent and how it can be the most crippling aspect of someone's training. He claimed in all his time teaching he's noticed the same pattern: for students who stay long enough (years), the ones who were the most inept, uncomfortable, and lacking in natural talent always surpassed the students who found karate to be easy and intuitive.

I'm finding this to be true now that I'm taking art classes as well. In the basic drawing class that I'm taking, people came in with widely varying levels of prior knowledge and natural talent. But I've observed the ones who were the best artists when the class started are more likely to get stumped or confused when we switch styles or mediums. Those who had never drawn before or "just don't get it" actually end up dealing with difficult mediums or objects to be drawn... perhaps because it's all so new and difficult to them the varying level of difficulty means little.

I'm not really qualified to explain why this is the case, but it has been true in my experience. Perhaps this study is in the same vein: I'm willing to bet many (though certainly not all) smart people are unaccustomed to thinking under pressure because for them there isn't normally pressure involved in thinking... it's so easy it just happens. When my parents try to install their VCR, they tend to enter this very deliberate "Ok, I'm about to do something hard and I don't undersand" mode, where as I just sit down and do it. So I could see how having a contrived equally-applied pressure situation would be dealt with better by them...they have to deal with it all the time

Steve Jobs said it best . . .

[Kris Magnusson]

"real artists ship."

......... kris

Not "I can't screw up" but "I'm likely to screw up

[JGski]

Hmmm. Not "I can't screw up" but "I'm likely to screw up".

A better explanation, seems to me, is that larger working memory allows deeper and more elaborate search trees to be constructed which either 1) grow fast enough to be overwhelming due to complexity and size, thereby creating stress, or 2) allow more possible scenarios with negative consequences to be discovered and fretted about, thereby creating stress. The larger number of negative scenarios aren't accurately counted or assigned cumulative probabilties (even smart people suck at that) so the odds *seem* worse even if they aren't, but smart people can imagine more of them that less smart people.

Sometimes people who don't know things can't done or don't realize how dangerous/risky a project is are willing to push the project through to sucess. They may not have a large enough working memory to analyze, relying on the blessing of relative ignorance and simple gut feel to guide them.

Motivation Is My Problem

[Cruxus]

My problem is motivating myself to do work I'm not personally interested in doing. For things like my personal website, I can create astonishing results (in my biased opinion, at least). Part of the problem, I guess, is that high school wasn't all that intellectually challenging for me; I could get by doing enough work to maintain 3.8 GPA (I gave up shooting for a 4.0 after I got a B+ in my first-semester freshman English class, which crushed my aspiration of speaking as a vale dictorian at graduation). Now I find in college the professors have TAs to actually look at the homework in depth and grade it without mercy.

In high school, students could fill their schedules with a variety of classes to make their days more interesting. Now in college, the bulk of my classes are computer science; and I'm finding learning about abstract data structures, various algorithms, and proving functions in ML to be something of a snore for me. It is a challenge, but it's like mathematics in that it's not an interesting one, for me at least.

pot brownies and high scores

[Anonymous Coward]

As an undergrad in neuroscience, I rarely scored near the top of the class. However, one morning before going to class, I noticed a bunch of brownies on the counter ( I shared an apartment with several herb-heads). I have a serious sweet tooth, and I couldn't resist munching one - not realizing what lay in store.

By the time I got to my neuroanatomy class, I was baked out of my mind. We had a midterm that day, and I was the first one to finish - by 15 minutes or so (significant for an hour-long test). Turned out I got the 2nd highest grade in the class.

In my entire college career, it was the ONLY test I enjoyed taking - partially because I was too stoned to give a shit about the outcome. I think there's some truth to the above theory!

Perhaps they crack under pressure...

[jtwine]

...because in general they are given higher responsibilities they realize that given the level of their responsibilities, the stakes and thus the cost of their mistakes are much higher.

There is a real difference in risk and cost when you have a fresh-outta-college programmer working on a text editor in his mother's basement, vs. a highly experienced developer designing the architecture for a multi-million dollar project.

Higher stakes, more stress, more likely to have to say: "Whoa, I need to take a day or two to settle my thoughts and clear my head."

Consider the following two scenarios, both involving people of the exact same mental abilities working at NASA:

• One has to design and implement a safety system for the next launch that will prevent another Challenger-like accident from ever happening again.

• The other has to design a timekeeping system for the maintainance crew (clock-in, clock-out).

Which one of the above do you think is going to have more stress and be more likely to crack?

Peace!

Word problems

[SeanDuggan]

Indeed. A word problem must be stated very clearly. Pay an English major to proofreead it for you. Goodness only knows they won't get paying work once they graduate. Also, if it's a broader word problem "You have these three pieces of equipment. Find the potential of the bowl" versus a narrow formula-turned-into-word-problem "The bowl is composed of stainless steel with a conductivity of 0.7. Given a 5-volt battery attached to one side and a 50-ohm resistor soldered onto the other side and assuming ideal wires, what is the potential?", you must be ready to accept different methods of finding the solution and moreover correct (or mostly correct even) answers that don't agree with your own. Maybe the student used the instruments in a different manner, using a different formula. Maybe they accounted for a factor you didn't think of. In my opinion, a student should receive at least half credit for showing on a word problem that they understand what the problem was and how to approach solving it. At that, I think that a wrong answer reached in a logical manner with documented work should net them 3/4 of the grade. Even a blatantly wrong answer should get some credit if the student notes that they know the answer can't be right and why.

Re:Thinking Inside The Square - Summary

[nartz]

Tough teachers stress achievement, the so called tricks they have only prepare you for those same tricks, while, on the contrary, new age teachers stress aptitude, i.e. fluid knowledge aiding in abstract thinking and potential of the student.

Deja vu all over again

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude this is freaky. You are so exactly me, circa fifteen years ago. Enjoying the failing; getting identical PSAT...

In case you are curious, I am back in college now because the employer downsized me. I am trying to wing it thru on what I knew from before [which puts me on a par with grad students, a lot of the time]. I am trying to get a bare-minimum 2.01 GPA to avoid the old ego games. And I am trying to play the college game on creative chutzpah rather than hardcore perfectionism, just to avoid those old habits that were so addictive.

It would be interesting to meet you a few years from now, and see if you followed the same course in life.

But one word of warning: Don't talk to any shrinks about the situation. They will listen at you rather than to you, and tag you as a psychopath. The effect is permanent, as just about everyone trusts the professional's judgment over yours. Just keep the shrinks from getting close enough to label you, and everyone else will get along with you just fine.

Analyze this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe other slashdotters can relate to this:

For me, the LEAST stressful part of school was the standardized tests. That was the one time when the teachers and the classmates would just shut up and leave me alone, and I could concentrate on playing with those pretty little nuggets of information. Knowing it would all be analyzed and graded by more or less impartial machines backed by teams of professionals was a big plus too--rather than the confusing and confused natterings of teachers who feel it their professional duty to rush to judgment.

And so I rocked--standardized tests were such a beautiful thing. Everyday life on the other hand was the stressful horror that compelled mediocrity.

Exactly backwards from TFA.