How do you define "smarts" ?
Do you define it as just raw intelligence? Or a combination of raw intelligence + leadership / soft skills?
For example, do you think DJ Solomon or Jamie Dimon are smarter than Terence Tao or Stephen Hawking because of their leadership ability? Tao and Hawking would blow Dimon and Solomon out of the water in terms of IQ but obviously are worse in regards to leadership.
I personally define smart as raw intellectual ability, because soft skills / leadership are highly subjective. You could replace the CEO of a BB with numerous people that could do the job just as well or better. They were at the right place at the right time -- we don't even necessarily know if DJ Solomon for example is even the "best" leader at his own firm. But people like Tao are one of one... how many people could do what Tao does.
Moreover, one can easily get better at leadership / soft skills through practice. But no one can get to the level of Tao or Hawking even if they try their hardest. That to me is true genius.
bump
I agree with how you assess intelligence (IQ) but disagree that raw intellectual superiority 100% makes someone a better leader than another. EQ in leadership is extremely important, as is learned experience (i.e. gut instinct based on decades of domain-specific experience). The perfect balance and optimal leader is usually someone with "high enough" IQ and differentiated EQ. I don’t think you give enough credit to how challenging building EQ is for most ultra high IQ people.
Great example of this is software companies. The best coders are often horrible managers and leaders despite often possessing the highest raw intelligence. They usually have a lack of EQ, high ego, stubbornness, etc. that would ruin morale for those beneath them and cloud high-level/strategic decision making.
“Even in such technical lines as engineering, about 15% of one's financial success is due one's technical knowledge and about 85% is due to skill in human engineering, to personality and the ability to lead people."
Yea for sure, I think "EQ" is more important for success than IQ, financially. That I agree with you on. Although EQ basically can just be learned, no? Also quantifying EQ is so hard, thus it is an imperfect definition for intelligence, IMO. If you take 100 CEOs, how could you possibly differentiate who has the best EQ? It would be a fundamentally incorrect assumption that just because someone is CEO of a big firm means that they have the highest EQ.
EQ is a very challenging thing to cultivate (simply comparing it to a fixed characteristic doesn't properly address its difficulty). Many people with extremely high IQ's struggle with EQ. In my experience, those folks tend to almost live in their own world and generally discount most other people (i.e. those not in mensa).
As such, my viewpoint is that "smarts" can be viewed on a two-pronged axis that generally rewards both IQ and EQ. For instance, if you are a physics genius but are not smart enough to see the value in learning about your fellow man, there is a limit to how "smart" I will deem you. Another analogy that comes to mind is that "smart" kid in high school we all knew who just "didn't try." In my mind, that kid must not have been very smart if he couldn't see the value in applying himself. On the flip side, a charismatic EQ beast who can't do algebra won't win too many points in my book.
I agree with you that EQ is far more subjective than IQ. I think it is usually something that is recognized by others and rewarded. Personally, this might be friendship or a romantic relationship. Professionally, maybe being fast-tracked to partner or winning over an investor. Therefore, I would, broadly speaking, bet that most CEO’s have far above average EQ and say that the very fact they have become CEO is a reflection of that.
I’ll honestly consider someone intelligent if they’re extremely good at something. Whether it be socializing, leading, understanding concepts quick, being a great athlete, etc. because it requires a deeper level of understanding to reach a certain point.
Its not to say that one without the other makes someone less smart but the extent to which they’re at. For example, Einstein was an incredible mind for physics and Messi is an incredible soccer player, neither could do what the other did and had different dimensions of intelligence (spacial intelligence). Obviously having extremely high spacial intelligence wouldn’t even get you eye contact in high finance.
But if we’re just comparing raw IQ and brain power then yeah I’d have to say a solid blend of IQ and EQ, maybe even some spiritual or religious depth as well.
If you can beat Andrew Tate in a chess game.
I saw a definition of stupid from Professor Scott Galloway a while back that said:
“A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person while deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses themselves”
If that is a good definition of stupid, then a smart person would be someone who makes decisions that are additive to others and to themselves.
Using that definition, I have come across very few smart people in my professional life, particularly in finance. I think that speaks more to the industry in which we work than the participants themselves.
Curiosity and open-mindedness. The amount of knowledge that still eludes us vastly outweighs the knowledge we have gathered thus far. Focusing on what people "know" is less impressive than focusing on how they learn.
The people I see as the smartest are the ones who can see the bigger picture. A simple example is a group of interns who are all incredibly book smart probably much smarter than me funny enough.
But one of them just understood how to navigate things much better. They were easy to talk to, had a good balance of being eager but relaxed. Basically I felt like I could have that one immediately manage the others. They were all wonderful to have around but that one just got it. Easily could have been mistaken for a full time.
Sort of both? To me it is (i) be able to grasp an entirely new concept that someone is explaining and ask intelligent questions based on the information provided and (ii) be able to explain a new concept, information, etc. to someone who has never seen it before in a way they can understand
Having perspective
Not killing your self over small mistakes or wasting time on materials that are not worth it
Knowing when it is worth it to put a lot of time on something, and doing so in a way that reflects your work ethic
Being reasonable with others and remaining positive throughout
Et rerum nihil ea cumque porro blanditiis consectetur. Ut beatae aliquid voluptatem qui velit earum sit qui. Ut voluptatem ad voluptatum odit quisquam eos aperiam. Nihil cupiditate quibusdam aut perspiciatis inventore et hic. Molestiae dignissimos facilis ut. Assumenda veritatis adipisci expedita magnam itaque.
Ea repellat quasi occaecati modi. Eveniet error accusamus autem non aut natus. Corporis quod quia et deserunt et. Voluptates eaque iusto cupiditate id. Odit fugit quibusdam mollitia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...