- Email: [email protected]
On Being Smart
Journal of Cardiac Failure Vol. 18 No. 2 2012
Editorial
On Being Smart GARY S. FRANCIS, MD Minneapolis, Minnesota
There is generally a positive relationship between intelligence, as measured by Intelligence Quotient testing, and success in later life. This relationship tapers off as a function of time. Being smart usually means that one can figure things out by grappling with facts and numbers and by using deductive reasoning. Analytic thought allows one to come to a reasonably clear understanding of a complex problem. Lots of people are very smart. We work with them on a daily basis. Then there is that other traitdcall it intuition, creativity, or imagination. It is a type of intelligence that is perhaps not as widely distributed in the general population. Creativity or imagination means looking at the same data as everyone else in the room, but seeing something quite different than what others see. It is being able to use one’s intuition to solve a problem when there is insufficient factual information to use deductive reasoning. Or it might be that one is able to draw vastly different conclusions than others from a common set of principles or statements of fact. As Steve Jobs would say, ‘‘Think Different.’’ Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs’s biographer, recently wrote an editorial in the New York Times (October 30, 2011) describing the ‘‘Genius of Jobs.’’ Isaacson has also written immensely interesting biographies of Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin. In the Times editorial he opines how Jobs tended to rely largely on the strength of his intuition when making key marketing decisions. Jobs relied more on experiential wisdom than on conventional learning. Einstein believed that ‘‘imagination is more important than knowledge.’’ I was fortunate to work in Jay Cohn’s laboratory for 17 years. The most favored human quality in that
laboratory was creativity. Highly creative ideas were the currency of the laboratory. Experiments were written out on paper or on the blackboard and discussed at length among the group. Dogma was always challenged and new ideas held in high regard. I don’t think that the deliberations had much to do with ‘‘being smart,’’ but they were all about ‘‘what if?’’ Over the years, I’ve had the opportunity to hear from many others that ‘‘smart people are a dime a dozendwhat we crave are highly creative people.’’ Highly creative, imaginative people rely more on their experience than on rigorous deductive reasoning. Obviously, both types of thinking are important, but cold mathematical reasoning can sometimes lead to overly dense conclusions. Remember, Einstein imagined himself traveling on a light beam to better understand the relation between time and space. It is imagination that opens the mind to alternative ways of thinking about a problem. Artists and writers understand the power of imagination. Smart, highly educated, analytic people do not necessarily produce innovation. Isaacson is correct in that those who stand at the junction of analytic thought and imagination are best positioned to come up with new ideas that have the most potential to change the world. In short, novelty trumps all. This is as true in publishing scientific papers as it is when working in a laboratory. When scientists get together, formally or informally, the question usually centers on ‘‘what’s going on in your lab these days?’’ Fresh ideas are our most valuable commodity. In my experience, most (but not all) new ideas spring from young people. Perhaps their minds are less cluttered, or perhaps they are simply not as familiar with the literature. They need to be listened to and should be allowed to pursue to some extent their own ideas. Highly imaginative, highly creative, somewhat radical ideas are the ones that eventually bubble up to move a whole field of investigation. Never underestimate the power of imaginative, intuitive thinking. It is the very soul of good science.
From the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Reprint requests: Gary S. Francis, MD, Cardiovascular Disease Division, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, MMC 508, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Tel: þ1-612-626-4895; Fax: þ1-612-626-4411. E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Francis has no disclosures to report. 1071-9164/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2011.12.001
Disclosures None. 89
Editorial
On Being Smart GARY S. FRANCIS, MD Minneapolis, Minnesota
There is generally a positive relationship between intelligence, as measured by Intelligence Quotient testing, and success in later life. This relationship tapers off as a function of time. Being smart usually means that one can figure things out by grappling with facts and numbers and by using deductive reasoning. Analytic thought allows one to come to a reasonably clear understanding of a complex problem. Lots of people are very smart. We work with them on a daily basis. Then there is that other traitdcall it intuition, creativity, or imagination. It is a type of intelligence that is perhaps not as widely distributed in the general population. Creativity or imagination means looking at the same data as everyone else in the room, but seeing something quite different than what others see. It is being able to use one’s intuition to solve a problem when there is insufficient factual information to use deductive reasoning. Or it might be that one is able to draw vastly different conclusions than others from a common set of principles or statements of fact. As Steve Jobs would say, ‘‘Think Different.’’ Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs’s biographer, recently wrote an editorial in the New York Times (October 30, 2011) describing the ‘‘Genius of Jobs.’’ Isaacson has also written immensely interesting biographies of Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin. In the Times editorial he opines how Jobs tended to rely largely on the strength of his intuition when making key marketing decisions. Jobs relied more on experiential wisdom than on conventional learning. Einstein believed that ‘‘imagination is more important than knowledge.’’ I was fortunate to work in Jay Cohn’s laboratory for 17 years. The most favored human quality in that
laboratory was creativity. Highly creative ideas were the currency of the laboratory. Experiments were written out on paper or on the blackboard and discussed at length among the group. Dogma was always challenged and new ideas held in high regard. I don’t think that the deliberations had much to do with ‘‘being smart,’’ but they were all about ‘‘what if?’’ Over the years, I’ve had the opportunity to hear from many others that ‘‘smart people are a dime a dozendwhat we crave are highly creative people.’’ Highly creative, imaginative people rely more on their experience than on rigorous deductive reasoning. Obviously, both types of thinking are important, but cold mathematical reasoning can sometimes lead to overly dense conclusions. Remember, Einstein imagined himself traveling on a light beam to better understand the relation between time and space. It is imagination that opens the mind to alternative ways of thinking about a problem. Artists and writers understand the power of imagination. Smart, highly educated, analytic people do not necessarily produce innovation. Isaacson is correct in that those who stand at the junction of analytic thought and imagination are best positioned to come up with new ideas that have the most potential to change the world. In short, novelty trumps all. This is as true in publishing scientific papers as it is when working in a laboratory. When scientists get together, formally or informally, the question usually centers on ‘‘what’s going on in your lab these days?’’ Fresh ideas are our most valuable commodity. In my experience, most (but not all) new ideas spring from young people. Perhaps their minds are less cluttered, or perhaps they are simply not as familiar with the literature. They need to be listened to and should be allowed to pursue to some extent their own ideas. Highly imaginative, highly creative, somewhat radical ideas are the ones that eventually bubble up to move a whole field of investigation. Never underestimate the power of imaginative, intuitive thinking. It is the very soul of good science.
From the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Reprint requests: Gary S. Francis, MD, Cardiovascular Disease Division, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, MMC 508, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Tel: þ1-612-626-4895; Fax: þ1-612-626-4411. E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Francis has no disclosures to report. 1071-9164/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2011.12.001
Disclosures None. 89