von Neumann would carry on a conversation with my 3-year-old son, and the two of them would talk as equals, and I sometimes wondered if he used the same principle when he talked to the rest of us.
Masha Gessen once wrote a series of articles for Slate grappling with her BRCA mutation. In the third article, she meets with my old boss David Laibson, hoping that he might be able to help think through the problem of whether to get an Oophorectomy, a Mastectomy, both, or neither. David quickly formulates the problem and finds the pivotal consideration: ‘do I prefer living much more of my life as an older person, or have a doubled mortality rate?’.
I’ve had a number of lower-stakes but structurally similar interactions with David. He seems to have this (from my perspective) superhuman ability to cut through muddled thinking, to shine a spotlight on the conceptually simple pivotal issue in some decision that, from my perspective, was deeply confusing.
What makes David so much smarter than me, at least in the “horse-power for everyday life” sense?
It doesn’t feel like he is creating insights that I cannot fathom. Far from it.
Instead, the analogy that I am drawn to is that of “seeing through clouds.” When I look at the problem, I see clouds. Maybe I can make out outlines. In some instances I could wait for the weather to improve. But, unless I’m having a lucky day, my seeing will be slower, effortful, unreliable. David, meanwhile, sees clear sky.
Part of why I like this analogy is because it works not only between-people, but within-me. In particular, relative to my hungover or extremely tired self, my well-rested self sees through clouds.