You’re walking in the woods

There’s no one around and your phone is dead.

In the corner of your eye you spot hi-

No I kid.

I still don’t really have a hard definition for smarts…..I don’t like thinking of myself as smart. I prefer thinking of myself as “not dumb”. Dumb is easier to define and prove. Dumb is “Doesn’t get solutions.” Dumb is “results in problems.” Smart is easy to define as “the opposite of dumb” but, that’s not the most precise definition. It’s still problem-oriented, and there’s a solution-oriented definition that’s even cooler.

The thing is, there’re so many ways to create solutions to most things! And relativity fucks up all objectivity — trying to figure out who is smart in a room full of smart people is usually the type of juice that’s not worth the squeeze. That room should bring different solution bringers that prove why smart is an x factor. That guy who’s creative enough to see past the functional fixation of an object (“This pen can be a stabby device too”) and be resourceful is smart. That gal who can retain data AND have it at hand enough to gain insight based on an established set of details is smart too. That worker who is self-knowing enough to recognize what effort is needed, how long it will take to apply, and conquer with a work ethic is also smart. And that idea guy who can innovate a novel solution based on knowing what’s possible is also smart/the literal genius……there’s a reason that a smarter definitions of “smart” is not-dumb.


Well one thing that makes a humans one of the most uniquely powerful forces on Earth I think is perceptual problem solving. Saying “what don’t I understand to achieve solution” and then getting it, is genius. And we’re talking more than relabeling something — you can ‘expand’ a vocabulary by relabeling known-words with new word-sounds — but compare that with expanding a vocabulary by learning new words with new meanings.

Originally, I thought that humans had creativity over AI….and we still do for a bit longer, but if AI can still only expand a known ruleset in amazing ways, then creativity isn’t our chief advantage.

I think the actual spark of human genius is being able to see outside of what’s internalized. That ability to go from a baby with sensory overload to understanding why the sky is blue is something really special. This means that psychologists can have a certain genius that programmers reach for. Being able to see and intuit mentalities outside of our own little scope and world-view, that’s something special.

And it’s almost as if that drive to see and understand new things explains a lot about why smarty-pants are also often curious folks by nature.

If you think there’s wisdom in saying “we see everything through ourselves”, consider “it’s basic to see everything through your own lens.” Some folks are so quirky and different that understanding them isn’t a far cry from understanding why the sky is blue.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s