正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

For professions that require technical skills, more intelligence is better. For leadership, though, too much smarts can backfire, as followers will feel unable to relate to you. All else being equal, people report that they find leaders (and, interestingly, romantic partners) to be most appealing at about the 90th...

50,478 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

10 条评论

Rob Henderson 的头像
Rob Henderson1 年前

Sign up here to get access to my full and unfiltered livestream recordings:

Cornius Poppicus 的头像
Cornius Poppicus1 年前

Leaders with very high IQ can work even if they can't relate to the common man, though. I think this is especially true in the military. MacArthur graduated #1 at West Point. Napoleon graduated from his military academy a year early.

J Sam🌐 的头像
J Sam🌐1 年前

CEO vs CTO

Tedward Stickel 的头像
Tedward Stickel1 年前

I am screwed.

TumblinMuffin😉 的头像
TumblinMuffin😉1 年前

Intelligence does it equate to relatability. Social skills can be learned no matter how high the IQ is “recorded”.

Jeremy Nguyen ✍🏼 🚢 的头像
Jeremy Nguyen ✍🏼 🚢1 年前

I also feel communication (eg. writers, orators) can be a bit like this. But the great writers or orators can sometimes be way over 120 IQ —but they know how to pitch their communication in a more universal way, without ever feeling condescending.

Chris Molina (Revolución Racional) 的头像
Chris Molina (Revolución Racional)1 年前

That makes sense. Relationships are about knowing your partner better than anyone and if you can’t understand your partner because he or she are too complex, that is going to put considerable strain on the relationship.

Dr. Michael Sagner, MD 的头像
Dr. Michael Sagner, MD1 年前

Very good point.

Brandon 的头像
Brandon1 年前

Couldn’t you circumvent that by hiring smarter people.

Tom Bellamy 的头像
Tom Bellamy1 年前

Makes sense. Leadership isn't really about cognitive horsepower. More like understanding and inspiring others.

相关视频

Jensen Huang just made the case that the smartest person in the room is now the most replaceable person on earth. Huang: “The definition of smart is somebody who’s intelligent, solve problems, technical. But I find that that’s a commodity. And we’re about to prove that artificial intelligence is able to handle that part easiest.” The skill you built your entire identity around was the first thing the machine replicated. Not the hardest part. The easiest. Huang: “People who are able to see around corners are truly, truly smart. And their value is incredible. To be able to preempt problems before they show up, just because you feel the vibe.” Huang: “That vibe came from a combination of data, analysis, first principle, life experience, wisdom, sensing other people.” The vibe is not intuition. It is decades of failed bets, human friction, and first-principles thinking compressed into a single read no model can replicate. You cannot prompt your way to it. You earn it by surviving things that had no instructions. Huang: “I think long term the definition of smart is someone who sits at that intersection of being technically astute, but human empathy and having the ability to infer the unspoken, around the corners, the unknowables.” Every institution you ever passed through graded you on the one thing the machine now does for free. The thing they never tested you on is the only thing that still matters. Huang: “And that person might actually score horribly on the SAT.” The SAT did not measure intelligence. It measured obedience to structure. The future does not reward what you can solve inside a framework someone handed you. It rewards what you can see when no framework exists. The machine did not replace human intelligence. It revealed that what we spent a century calling intelligence was never intelligence at all. The people who memorized the answers are about to work for the people who sensed the questions before anyone thought to ask.

Dustin

122,916 次观看 • 13 天前

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

Big Brain AI

366,029 次观看 • 3 个月前