My own point of view stems from not having a brilliant memory, but good problem solving skills. I am constantly fighting to make sure I know enough, and sometimes feel swamped with information.

I can see aspects of my job where I need to look up the answer, and think “I should know this already”. Most of it is biology, but given the option between not knowing it and knowing it, I would choose knowing it.

I think I came across strongly above as well - mostly because I very much value the knowledge that is building up slowly.

Let me explain the context. When I was studying engineering we were a close knit group that hung out with each for five years. (I studied at University of Waterloo) And one of the discussions that reared its head was photo memory vs problem solvers.

It related to how we learned materials. For the most part people argued that education was geared towards those that were good at photographic memory. My good friend who later became a lawyer in patent law said because education was mostly trivia related he could pass engineering courses even though he could not problem solve his way out of a wet paper bag.

Of course problem solvers still passed and did well, but many who had photo-graphic memories or were good at trivia thought they should not pass engineering.

“Problem solving is fine where there is no routine answer. However, if you need to problem solve a solution when you should already know the answer, then I would not classify that as smarts.”

Let me give an example my wife. She is an electrical engineer, whereas I am a mechanical engineer. Her trivia knowledge is downright horrible, but her problem solving skills are very good.

Knowing by trivia is not better than knowing by problem solving. Let’s take the following algebra:

x2 - 1 = 0

The answer is

(x+1)(x-1) = 0 and thus x = 1, and -1.

I know this by trivia, as it is childs play, as the properties of the right angle triangle 3, 4, 5. For my wife to get the answer she needs to problem solve.

Sure I might be slightly faster, but am I better? No, because most problems in life are problem solving solutions, and applying trivia answer can result in disasterous results. I even argue that many problems that we have had is BECAUSE we relied on trivia since trivia assumes equality.

So is it better to know by trivia, or problem solving? I say neither…

:)

Problem solving is fine where there is no routine answer. However, if you need to problem solve a solution when you should already know the answer, then I would not classify that as smarts.

Last year in August 2006 Scientific America ran an article entitled “The Expert Mind”.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945

The article is well worth the read and gives you some interesting insights into what makes you “smart” or an expert.

Here is the kicker of the article:

“The one thing that all expertise theorists agree on is that it takes enormous effort to build these structures in the mind. Simon coined a psychological law of his own, the 10-year rule, which states that it takes approximately a decade of heavy labor to master any field. Even child prodigies, such as Gauss in mathematics, Mozart in music and Bobby Fischer in chess, must have made an equivalent effort, perhaps by starting earlier and working harder than others. ”

Think about this paragraph a bit. It means to be “smart” regardless of how you have been blessed genetically you need time. A genius does not fall from the sky.

Regarding the point, “Knowing the answer qualifies as knowledgeable, knowing how to achieve the same result without knowing the answer is displaying smarts and ingenuity!”

I think the first point you are talking about trivia, and the second point is called problem solving. Being smart is about how much of each you have. Some fields require more trivia, and other fields require more problem solving. For example in university I had friends in biology that became doctors and they were trivia folks. Whereas I am an engineer and I am a problem solver buff.

As per the Scientific America article trivia and problem solving can learned. For example engineers are heavily weighted towards problem solving and not much trivia. Engineers are required by their nature to create bridges through mountains. People don’t ask can it be done. They say let’s do it and the engineer has to figure it out.

Whereas a doctor when inspecting a patient has to remember the thousands of symptoms and make an analysis. This sort of smart is more trivia related.

To become successful you need to perserve, and work at the topic. Depending on your ability to learn that sucess might come quicker or slower, though according to Scientific America it will come. Otherwise our race would have died out a LONG time ago.

“I already define SMARTS as awareness”… not knowledge, that was quick-typing

And think of this issue, anybody in business as a painter has the basic knowledge / awareness of a painter inmplied.. and I’ll define painter here as a person who paints houses, not an artist. What if you need to hire a painter the paint the Eiffel Tower? I don’t know why you would, but it’s possible that no painter you interview has ever perform such a task before? Knowledge wouldn’t be a deciding factor in your choice, but the a painter with the smarts will be the successful candidate.

There are many lawyers out there, as I believe knowledge is only a subset of smarts.. those knowledgeable lawyers you speak of are admirable and its a quality they can sell to get clients, but ultimately, a knowledgeable lawyer who knows all about precedences but with no smarts won’t be as successful as a knowledgeable lawyer who has the smarts to apply it in cases to CREATE precedences. Which one do you think you want in a case that has never been tried before?

You are putting words in my mouth when you indicate I prefer no knowledge vs. knowledge. I’d resubmit that I prefer a person who display smarts to achieve permanency in all solutions, all variety of the same type of problem over a knowledgeable person who cannot evolve his thinking to handle similar situations.

Your example of asking a painter is ridiculous. I already defined knowledge as “awareness”. I surmise that when you label a person a “painter” that the awareness is implicit. It’s the same implicit assumption that a Harvard / Standford / MIT grad who has never picked up a paintbrush in his life to NOT have an awareness of painting. In that case, no matter how much knowledge that person has, the lack of awareness about painting should cause you to reconsider hiring this person.

Now, if this knowledgeable genius can adapt and learn by watching others, though he doesn’t have the knowledge, and nobody is teaching him, perhaps his awareness reaches other realms (i.e. physical dexterity). Then you might still be asking a successful candidate to paint your house. But if his awareness is only limited to textbook konwledge and his brain wiring renders him a “clutz”. I don’t think you’d be served to ask him to join your painting party at all.

Smart and Knowledgeable are not mutually exclusive. You seem to think I think so and. Though a smart person may not always have those paper credentials to back them up, they are often the ones with the drive to keep developing personally, out of necessity because of their predicament. Thus called “the school of hard knocks”. Whereas once knowledgeable people obtain their knowledge, can sometimes restrict themselves to their narrow view of the world, unwilling to expand their awareness.

My assertion is definitely that if smart is a set defining usefullness to mankind, then knowledge is a subset of smart. They are not mutually exclusive, but smarts means more than just knowledge!

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2005/08/22/newscolumn1.html?jst=s_cn_hl

“As you develop your expertise you become more valuable to a client,” Finn said. “It justifies higher rates.”

Choate’s list of its strongest practices includes private equity, technology, intellectual property litigation, insurance and reinsurance and large commercial litigation.

“Our strategy is to focus on a select number of core areas where we think we’re very good,” said Choate co-managing partner William P. Gelnaw Jr. “Firms of all sizes can do well if they’re focused and talented.”

Everyone knows how to look something up - it’s called books, or google, or journal articles. It isn’t exactly brain surgery.

Making excuses for laziness is bad for personal development, and bad for business. Learn the answer now, before you need to look it up.

Someone who has no knowledge:
a) does not know how to place knowledge they just learnt in context;
b) will have difficultly understanding nuances and exceptions to the rules;
c) will waste (clients’) time; and
d) will either freeze when faced with important decisions or will simply guess the answer. (i.e. “What do you mean I don’t have 3 hours to find the answer?!?”)

If I go to a painter and ask him to paint my house, and he needs to look up how to use a brush, I don’t think he has “smarts”, I think “time to find another painter”.

If I go to a doctor to have surgery performed and he needs to look up how to use a scalpel, I am going to a different doctor.

The only situation I could justify not knowing the answer is where that knowledge is obscure, or voluminous.

I work as an attorney and while I am “knowledgeable” about the field I specialise in, if someone asked me about maritime law, I would not know the answer. I could display “smarts” and “ingenuity” in finding the answer, but I wouldn’t consider that a virtue. Instead, I would recommend they go and talk to someone who is “knowledgeable” about maritime law.

It isn’t hard to be knowledgeable about a subject - dedicate yourself to the task and undertake the necessary education. Pretending that ignorance is someone “smarts” or “ingenuity” is ridiculous.