Reframe the problem, look at it from the perspective of value. In most cases people do not want the smartest solution, they just want something that matches their world view.
Solutions are dictated by problem itself to a large extent, so when someone is right when others are wrong he may be just understanding the nature of the problem better. So he is conventionaly minded, but sees deeper into the chain (web) of implications, because has more powerful brain or spent more attention on the topic out of interest, etc.
It's not that hard a problem. It's a problem that looks hard because we were looking in the wrong directions based on "philosophy of mind" equating intelligence with consciousness.
"this pragmatism produces elegant solutions"
I disagree. I think the pragmatism encourages one to "be clever" and just "get it done". Often this is not elegant.
The whole premise of the article is false dilemma. It's asking why "smart people" haven't solved "their own problems" when by definition "their own problems" are whatever problems they haven't solved.
Thinking is limited by intelligence, so just because you think it's the best solution, doesn't mean it's a universal truth, it only means that maybe the human level of intelligence can't think of a better solution.
The bit I struggled with is that in many fields, either the majority are wrong/don't have the solution (Argumentum ad populum) or otherwise listening to expertise/experience can either give you too much input or, again, implies that there is more chance that experience will give you a better solution to a problem. In their example, if Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis had asked his more experienced peers about approaching the problem of infections, they would have told him he was barking up the wrong tree with hand washing.
The really difficult part of any venture is knowing how to distinguish wise advice from just another opinion.
Many great solutions come from people with "crazy" thinking and I would expect they could have caused great damage (or perhaps have - jet engines) but otherwise we would be moving very slowly as a planet?
I would argue that this is the defining factor in what makes someone intelligent or not. If you're always revising your ways of thinking about a problem, your probability of converging on a solution is vastly greater than someone with a narrow, one-track focus. In fact, another article on the HN homepage (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness...) elaborates on this point of trying multiple "solution paths" to arrive at an answer to a problem.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people get it in their head that they've discovered the "right way" and dismiss every other idea. This problem is particularly notorious in subjects like quantum mechanics. The field is so confusing that people find some kind of local comprehension maximum that they get stuck in and refuse to budge from that sort of ideology (which is often the wrong ideology by the way since QM is such a deep subject. Throw some quantum field theory or standard model physics at a quantum chemistry professor or TA and they won't know what to make of it).
To give a more concrete example: did you know that a spinning ball weighs more than the same ball when it is stationary? Tell this to someone decently knowledgable in physics and there's a good chance they'll argue vehemently against you based on their misunderstanding (or misinformation) of what they've learned in the past. Sometimes the effort to convince someone of an idea like this isn't worth the time; these people are locked into one way of thinking and take it as an affront to their ego. There's limited intelligence here. Don't want to be like this? Don't get angry when someone challenges you. That's the best way to start. I've never understood why so many people get upset if you try to point out a flaw in their reasoning. I've noticed this sort of anger much less frequently on HN (on the other hand, there's significantly more "you're wrong" posts than a normal discussion board).
In fact, do a little experiment if you wish. Look through HN stories and find places where people challenge each other in the comments. If you notice someone who says "you know what -- you're correct" or "yeah, that makes more sense", there's a good chance they make a lot of intelligent posts on here. If you find someone that never concedes to anyone else, it's likely they are locked into one and only one way of thinking and are unlikely to ever do anything considered "genius".
There's a third option Marco forgot. Imagine that the problem is avoided because someone says, "it's right that we have a trash can by the door because people don't want to touch the door knob with their bare hands," and then follows through on that _correct_ theory by putting a garbage can there.
So I say: if your theory is correct, it'll make sense as a theory (i.e., integrate with the rest of your existing knowledge) AND it'll work in practice. If what you're trying keeps failing, the solution is to go back, check your premises, and identify what's wrong with your theory. Often people do this automatically (and call it being "pragmatic"), but with bigger ideas, an explicit approach is required.
To go for long without theory is to fly blind, and that's dangerous. Ideas and theory are what allow us to fly in the first place, as well as to change course before we hit the proverbial mountain hidden in the fog just ahead.
The pragmatist has a better grasp on can vs should.
reply