It takes three types of thinking to be smart

Body

Balancing and combining different kinds of intelligence may be even more important than how much you know, or how you think.

Do you know what it means to be smart? It’s a more complicated question than it may seem. There are several ways to think about intelligence—as the well-known “book-vs.-street smart” binary illustrates. By most people’s definition, a truly smart person would be someone who not only thinks well but is also able to translate thought into concrete steps toward positive and practical goals. Balancing and combining different kinds of intelligence may be even more important than how much you know, or how you think. 

Matthew A. Cronin, professor of management at Costello College of Business at George Mason University. Photo Provided.
Matthew A. Cronin. Photo provided.

In a recently published technical note, Matthew A. Cronin, professor of management at Costello College of Business at George Mason University, and his co-author Lillien M. Ellis of the University of Virginia, deconstruct intelligence into three modalities, which they label the Scientist, the Artist and the Judge (or “SAJ,” pronounced “sage”). 

As Cronin says, the Scientist is about “logic and evidence…how we know stuff.” The Artist stands for imagination, the ability to conceive possibilities outside what we are given. The Judge is responsible for weighing the morality, appropriateness, etc. of an action or direction.  

Cronin contends that we all have a Scientist, Artist and Judge in our minds, but they are often out of balance. “Most people have one of the three that they like the most, and they have that guy command everybody else. And that’s when you have problems,” he says. 

As an example, Cronin’s technical note cites Judge-heavy cybersecurity protocols—they valued security but did not account for how memory worked—that forced users to create passwords that were impossible to remember. People wrote them down near their computers, defeating the whole purpose of security. Adding the Scientist and Artist into the mix resulted in innovation, e.g. long passphrases that more easily stick in the mind without needing to be noted down.  

According to the SAJ framework, the Artist-Scientist pairing produces discoveries about the world, by relating novel information or situations to what is already known. Collaboration between Artist and Judge is required to formulate a vision, or an imagined realization of desires or ideals deemed worth pursuing. The Scientist and Judge can work together to build skill, or the productive application of knowledge toward a chosen objective. 

“You cycle through these roles,” Cronin says. “We can start with what we want, which is the Judge, and how things work, which is the Scientist—but that’s likely only to maximize what we’re already doing. So we have to find a vision that might be better, but we’re almost certainly not going to be able to get that to work without some discovery.” 

Building upon Cronin’s 2018 book (co-authored by Jeffrey Loewenstein) The Craft of Creativity, the SAJ framework formalizes how creativity (the Artist) works alongside other cognitive tools to help us think, work, and live better. “People think of creativity as this magical ability. No, it’s a skill that can be developed. If you can think about a subject, you can think creatively about it,” Cronin says.  

“AI can tell you whatever you want to know. But that doesn’t guarantee it’s correct—that’s the Scientist. It doesn’t tell you what you should do—that’s the Judge. And it will predict only from the most likely outcomes—definitely not the Artist.” 

Matthew A. Cronin, professor of management at Costello College of Business at George Mason University

By extension, there’s hope for anyone striving to achieve intellectual balance by strengthening their Scientist, Artist, or
Judge—whichever might be a bit undernourished. “Step one is just to make people aware,” Cronin says. “They think either thinking is one undifferentiated blob, or the three are totally remote and separated from one another.”  

The SAJ framework can also be an active tool for structuring decision-making in a balanced way. “If I have an idea for the way things could be, I know that I need to also know how they actually work…And when you encounter unbalanced thinking, like a bureaucrat who lacks the imagination (i.e. Artist) to conceive that there may be other ways to deal with a situation, you can remind that person how everything we now take for granted was once thought impossible.” 

Cronin has been teaching the SAJ framework in his management courses for more than five years, and he feels it will only grow more impactful as AI challenges organizations to define the value-add that human minds can bring to a problem set.  

“AI can tell you whatever you want to know,” he says. “But that doesn’t guarantee it’s correct—that’s the Scientist. It doesn’t tell you what you should do—that’s the Judge. And it will predict only from the most likely outcomes—definitely not the Artist.”