Smart. Intelligent.
Knowledgeable. Wise.
Brilliant. Clever.
Skilled.
Gifted.
These words don’t all mean the same things, yet they are sometimes used interchangeably. I think that can cause problems and I’m going to explain why.
There’s at least a couple of prominent bloggers that I follow who have been writing about “getting smarter” through blogs and social media:
Jeremiah Owyang – Manage your time like money
Robert Scoble – various places and locations around the Web; largely in reference to reading blogs, following online conversations
I believe that I’ve seen the phrase “getting smarter” used in this context before by other writers.
I think they’re using the word “smarter” incorrectly.
Smart has a number of definitions, here’s the relevant one:
Smart (adj.) – characterized by sharp quick thought; bright (intelligent is a synonym for smart)
In this context, being smart is to possess skills that allow you to think quickly with good judgement; it also implies a superior capacity for mental work.
It’s possible that reading can make increase some mental skills, but only through reflection and retention of the read material.
I think that Jeremiah and Robert are really talking about becoming more knowledgeable or better informed. Knowledge acquisition, often done through reading or absorbing information via various media, is darned important. If you are an analyst like Jeremiah or a maven like Robert, you need to keep on top of what is happening in your field of interest. They must spend a lot of their days consuming media in order to learn new, important, and interesting things.
Question is: does that make you smarter? Does reading increase your inherent abilities to think quickly and, for want of a better word, well?
After a certain point in time, I don’t think so. After awhile, I think most of us get to a point where reading and consuming information only helps us maintain our cognitive skills.
Let me put this another way: is a library smart? Or a collection of bookmarks?
No.
They are merely repositories of information or shortcuts to access that information.
Information is useless unless it’s understood by the reader and used to do something.
Here’s my takeaway point: media consumption doesn’t make you smarter if it is a passive exercise. Unless you use that information to think or work differently, it’s basically just memorization or entertainment. Consumption without action or exercise doesn’t make you better, stronger, or faster.
To really get smarter, take that information you’ve consumed and play around with it in your head. Challenge assumptions. Verify facts. Debate with friends and colleagues. Make mistakes by trying to use the information. These are ways to get smarter.
# # #
OK, I’m done. I’d really like to know what you think? Am I off base with the concept of getting smarter? Are Robert and Jeremiah using the term correctly? Or am I onto something here?
Please share your thoughts in the comments section or on FriendFeed.
And thus ChangeForge was born… well that is the intent I cling to
Good reading, Mark – especially in your conclusion whereby the application of gathered information can lead to increased knowledge.
Likewise, after reflecting a bit on the concept of simple consumption of information – you are also correct in that this is simply entertainment. I have been asking myself lately whether writing makes enough of a difference in the world?
At some thought – and especially in review of Randy Pausch's life – yes it can. But more importantly, it is the application of Randy's knowledge through his many lectures and actions in life that made the most difference. His writing simply allowed his message to 1) read a wider audience and 2) speak for him after he left.
So I came to the simple conclusion that I can only hope that my writing can become a catalyst to affect the paradigm, and more importantly I must impact the world in the small ways I can each and every day.
In my humble opinion, there is wisdom in that course of action.
My main beef, and it was being nit-picky, was that “smarter” was being misused in this context. On the other hand, that happens a lot with other terms, but in the case it stuck in my mind.
I like your reference to Randy Pausch. Makes me wonder if our blogs will exist in any format at all 5, 10, 20, or even 50 years from now and whether or not they will have any lasting value.
Thanks for stopping by.
Mark, I love this post! Is a library smart? HA! I think that “consuming” does make you smarter, provided you “consume smartly” like how Brian Clark recently wrote about on Copyblogger.
A simple way to be smarter about this is to not ever take in anything passively after the first go-through (yes, read/watch more than once). I take notes as I watch, read, or listen, and it has made a huge difference in my retention and in how I act on information.
And there is yet one more level above smarts and that's wisdom, which comes (hopefully) from doing, not reading. You have to put the book down and make things happen.
Shoot, I meant to bring in the wisdom angle as well.
Yeah, you have a good method there. Kind of like going back to college/university, though..
But it works.
To me, being smart is a measure of how you well you can analyze/respond in a given situation.
How well can you take all your knowledge and experience and either create or react with the greatest effectiveness.
sorry but just because a person uses social media tools doesn't mean they are going to be smarter over the time of using them. You can sit the dumbest person in the world in the middle of the Library of Congress and chanes are they will end up reading the magazines. Just the fact that they have access to all the brilliant works of our society doesn't mean they will use them to improve themselves.
People have to want to learn and the web in general while it gives them the tools to make themselves smarter quite often can have the opposite effect. Look at the denegration of the English language or how easily we all fly into name calling only because the other person involved is unknown and invisible to you.
In this case I'm definitely on your side of the points being made.
Another way to say it is that being knowledgeable and “well” informed is only one piece of the puzzle of being smart. Generally speaking, intelligence and “smartness” have a lot of stereotypes and assumptions that a lot of studies in cognitive sciences are proving wrong. I guess it's because we are still mystified by intelligence. The idiot savants, the child prodigy, the genius, or the intellectual bookworm. We sometimes forget that getting smart or having breakthroughs (which is the end goal for the majority. not a lot are trying to get smart just for the sake of it) is most of the time really just hard work.
If I understand you correctly, being “smart” has a lot to do with skill and ability and I would agree.
For the record, I've tried to indicate above that Robert and Jeremiah are both very bright guys. They are certainly becoming more knowledgeable and probably wiser through their reading, but I think they are both at the point where this activity by itself won't make them any smarter.
Excellent point about hard work!
I work in a group at PARC is called “Augmented Social Cognition” and it's all about building technology (or web-based tools) that facilitate some aspects of cognition—in some ways, to make you “smarter.” But that's not exactly the best term (as other commenters have discussed). Working hard or actually incorporating new ideas into your thinking is often what we mean by “smart” here.
Instead, my research has been focused on understanding how people find and synthesize new information (perform “sensemaking”) because of its availability on new websites or through social interactions online. My instinct is that new web tools have the ability to augment human cognition but only where individuals are willing to put the time and effort in to make use of the new-found information. Maybe this makes us “smarter” or maybe it simply makes easier to find relevant information.
Playing the definition game can be tricky if you never make any headway. But I certainly like the discussion of what it means to be “smarter” because of social media.
Hello Brynn and thanks for stopping by. I suspected this topic would right up your alley based on what I read at your blog. A number of my readers and social media contacts dive frequently and sometimes deeply into social media streams. FriendFeed is a central place where many streams of data converge via RSS feed aggregation, but you're probably already aware of that.
Your point about being willing to put in time and effort to make productive use of these tools is well taken.
Friendfeed *is* interesting because people can dive deeper into topics through threaded discussions. It's definitely a site I'm hoping to study further for its “sensemaking” capabilities. (And of course, I participate on these social media sites myself!)
Out of curiosity, does participation in these sites make your research more difficult? Isn't it harder to be objective?
Being objective is definitely hard, whether you are an active participant of the thing you study or not. There are some things you can only experience from participating yourself, though. And after that, I try to consider the behavior I observe from many different perspectives (and academic theories)…
In other words, yes, it's hard, but it's better than the alternative, I think!
(Do you want to participate in a study?)
Sure, why not? As long as you don't need blood and sleep deprivation isn't involved. You can reach me at contact AT broadcasting-brain DOT com.
[...] What does getting smarter really mean? [...]