Dan Erwin

Quotation of the Week: Treasury Secretary George Schultz

I'm not struggling about my legacy. . . I want my grandchildren to be proud of me.  That's the main thing.

--George Schultz, former Treasury Secretary in the Nixon administration

Schultz' response was part of an interview by Deborah Solomon in the Sunday New York Times Magazine.  The question that generated his response was this: You served as Treasury secretary in the Nixon administration, secretary of state for Ronald Reagan and, between those two posts, you were president for seven years of the Bechtel Group, the controversial engineering company based in San Francisco.  Are you concerned about your legacy?

Reading the interview, I was musing over Schultz' storied life and the obvious happiness with which he views it.  Schultz will be 90 in December and is a contributing member of the Hoover Institute at Stanford. 

Although many of us think that age used to be venerated, I doubt it.  Indeed, even Will Shakespeare spoke disparagingly of age.  Jaques in As You LIke It, spoke of age as "second childishness and mere oblivion.   Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."  Most still think you can't teach an old dog new tricks.  The old are not educable.

It's conventional wisdom, but neuroscience today shows it's all wrong.  In the last ten years research has found that the brain is quite capable of creating new neurons all through life and making new connections.  Yes, some mental processes, like working memory, clearly deteriorate.  If the material is emotionally nuanced, we will retain it.  We can integrate memories from both the left and the right hemisphere.  And the brain compensates for our losses by reorganizing.

When it comes to memories, older people tend to be more positive than younger.  Intriguingly, they bounce back from failure much faster than younger. 

Conversing with a senior exec in one of America's well-known companies about the possibility of some coaching, his response to me was telling: You're old enough to have had a few failures and learned from them.  I can work with you.  (And he did!)

Or, as Daniel Coyle writes in The Talent Code: Why is wisdom most often found in older people?  Because their circuits are fully insulated and instantly available to them; they can do very complicated processing on many levels, which is really what wisdom is.

I'm laughing as write this, waving my middle finger in the air, and enjoying the fact that I'll be 76 years old in a week.  Neuroscience is now shredding the conventional wisdom on aging.

So what's in this for Gen-Y or X or Boomers?  There's a lot to be said for the fun and wisdom of aging.  Though George Schultz sounded serious in the interview, it was obvious that he fully enjoys life.

Quotation of the Week: David Shenk

Forget everything you think you know about genes, talent, and intelligence.  In recent years, a mountain of scientific evidence has emerged suggesting a completely new paradigm: not talent scarcity, but latent talent abundance.

--David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us

I intend to keep printing these reminders because the conventional knowledge, the very opposite of this quote, is so deeply ingrained within our psyches that 95% of the population remains either unaware or unwilling to believe the research.

A part of this rejection of even a mountain of scientific evidence is based upon the very human and very selective exposure in which we all participate.  Often, that selective exposure causes us to dismiss as fake the evidence that doesn't jibe with our views.

But dismissing this highly important research is also dismissing huge opportunities for us as workers and as family members.  Because the implications of that are that we all--with a lot of hard work--can create a far bigger niche in life than we once thought.  Indeed, the research, as Shenk writes, shows us that all of us can have a much more enriching life.

Here's my post, The fuel for genius, which addresses similar issues.

"How to Be Brilliant." It's all about discipline, not giftedness.

Forget about genes as "unchanging" "blueprints" and talent as a "gift," all tied up in a bow.  The review of David Shenk's new book, The Genius in All of Us:  Why Everything You've been told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ is Wrong, in today's NYTimes Book Review summarizes much of the important research findings over the past ten years.

Reading over the review a couple times, I hooted with laughter remembering the old saw from music school about how to get to play at Carnagie Hall:  practice, practice, practice.  That's exactly what Anders Ericsson has learned about development, the notion of deliberate practice.

Shenk sets out to overthrow the conventional ideas surrounding the words, "nature" and "nurture."  But he also recognizes that you can't overthrow the conventional ideas and images that have been accumulating for more than 125 years.  In fact, as I've argued in numerous places, old dogma dies hard.  Once concepts are deeply embedded, a superstructure of assumptions and ideas grows around it.  Rejecting a dogma means that many ideas are now questionable, more research could be invalid, and that the reputation and contribution of many scientists might be questioned.  As you can guess, old dogma rarely gets challenged. 

Still, two significant and distinct lines of psychological research have been built up over the last fifteen years.  One body of research shows that intelligence is fundamentally a competence that can be developed.  A second line of research shows that supervised coaching, maintained at high levels for extended time periods, along with disciplined learning, can be far-reaching.

I draw two very important conclusions from this research.  First, the next time you pick up the Wall Street Journal and read an article by Charles Murray (of the Bell Curve) and his ilk, remember that he's either BSing or clueless.  Here's a copy of a letter by Robert Sternberg of Yale and Tufts, which I've posted on my website, challenging Murray's archaic ideas.

What the research also reveals is that we need not be stuck in careers and vocations that go the way of the Dodo bird as a result of technology and innovation.  If we are willing to persist in continual growth, we can create new opportunities for ourselves.  I've seen clients do that very thing for years and years.

Oh yeah.  What Shenk seems to be unfamiliar with is the notion of small wins, the best way to persist and grow in the face of failure.  You can find my basic discussion of the process and the research here.  Why small changes work. . . . andMotivation and small wins . . . .

Neuroscience Says Sleepy Heads Learn Better

In my recent post on neuroscience, sleep and creativity, I introduced the fascinating research on sleep by Matthew Walker and his colleagues at Berkeley.  We've known that exercise, specifically running, nutrition and novel experiences all enhance our smarts.  We're also learning that sleep consolidates memories that have been created. 

Now Walker comes along and recommends "power napping," a practice I really love when I can get it. 

But for those who work at home, a nap just might be possible unless you're balancing a two-year-old on your knee.  I've learned that when I'm not out on a consulting gig, my most effective work schedule is constructed around 2 to 3 hour sessions, usually starting at 6:30 am.  That includes a coffee break, and an afternoon nap.  We have several hours of help for my wife, but I plan and fix the dinner, enlisting my wife's help on salads and table settings.  (My wife's dementia doesn't mix with the stove).  I usually hit the study again from 9:30 until 11 or so.  That can vary from eight to ten hours, and it works for me.

But I've been curious about why my napping in the middle of that weird structure refreshes both body and brain.  Now I know.  Building upon earlier research like that in my previous blog, Walker was especially interested in episodic memory which relates to specific events, people and times.  Understanding that episodic memories deteroriate with time, his team wanted to find out whether sleep restores the brain's capacity for efficient learning. 

Once again, the team asked a group of people to take part in two learning sessions, one at noon and one at 6PM.  After the first session, members of the group were broken into two teams: nap or no-nap.  Along the way, they found that the ideal nap is about 90 to 100 minutes.  That's a long nap in my book.  My work ethic usually kicks in and wakes me up after 45 minutes to an hour. 

What they found was that those who stayed awake became worse at learning.  In contrast, those who napped actually improved their capacity to learn, doing better in the evening than they had at noon.  That's clearly true for me.  I seem to get more done in the evening hours than any other time of the day.

From the perspective of neuroscience, the findings suggest that sleep clears the short term memory, consolidates itself into the long term memory, and makes way for new learning. 

If you work at home, and the nest is still busy, that won't work very well.  My values prevented evening work most of the time, but now that we are empty nesters, the information confirms my experience. 

The most important take-away is the clear announcement that you just can't keep working away at something and be successful without naps/sleep.  The traditional managerial notion of working on tight timelines is just bunk. 

The economist has a delightful write-up of the research here.   

"Do You Really Want to Be a Leader?"

I've been musing for some time over a highly realistic article with the above title that appeared in the Wall Street Journal in November last year.  The article begins by dismissing the issue of whether leaders are born or made, and continues with the truth that we really don't know whether we're leadership material until we try very hard to express it.  Based on the recent brain science and orientation to growth, they're response is exceptionally accurate.  A gloss of Daniel Coyle's book title might be:  Leadership isn't born.  It's grown.

The authors of the article, Preston Bottger and Jean-Louis Barsoux of IMD International, the Swiss-based MBA program, point out that senior level jobs are massive, complex and full of conflict.  That's the best set-up for understanding leadership that I've ever seen.  They also emphasize the political dimensions of leadership, that the higher a person goes, the more he or she must deal with other high-caliber people who know how to get what they want, are difficult, strong-willed and have a sharp appetite for power. 

Although the authors focus on questions that execs should ask themselves about whether they want to be leaders, the questions are just as important for Gen-Yers moving into their first job. 

How far do you want to go up the ladder?

Going up the ladder requires you to continuously make choices that will affect other people's lives  and livelihood.  Furthermore, you'll be doing this in a context where others will be competing with you and wanting the next job up.

Here's a useful exercise.  Look at your immediate boss's job and ask whether you could do it as well or better yourself--honestly.  And take a look further up the ladder.  What must those people deal with on a daily basis?  What will their jobs require that you currently lack the experience and tools for?

What are you really willing to invest?

I keep an old Spanish proverb in my front lobes at all times:  "Purchase what you may, but pay for it."  Everything comes with a price to it.  You may want to lead, but it will require a great deal of investment.  Leadership requires business smarts, people smarts, technical capabilities, but above all it is about power. 

The brutal reality is that whatever else a leader must do, a leader must gain, exercise and retain power.

You will be giving up pleasures and there'll be plenty of questions about balancing personal and family life.  A COO of one of America's leading firms once hired me for help in managing his time and work.  He quietly informed me that he had to make some changes or there would be a divorce in the offing.  (He was successful in making the changes!)  That is not an unusual experience. 

Furthermore, as a leader you must take people where they have never been before, in terms of perspectives, ideas and behaviors.  A major piece of leadership is not only about your own willingness to make change, but also your ability to lead people to make change.

How will you keep it up?

Over several decades, you'll need to find ways to keep learning,maintaine cutting-edge expertise and especially keep yourself motivated.  As often as not, you'll be unrecognized for your performance.  The authors summarize the fundamental issues of keeping up as physical vitality, emotional flexibility and intellectual freshness. 

One of the weaknesses of successful people is that  once they arrive, they become closed, set in their ways and stop learning.  My experience has been that that experience is more true of leaders than not.  That may well be the reason that so few continue in leadership. 

Yeah.  You can grow leadership, and it's quite learnable, but the reality is that there are an awful lot of issues involved. 

So.  Do you really want to be a leader?

 

A Dysfunctional Personality, But a Career Success

In an intriguing article in the latest Atlantic magazine, David Dobbs, who writes on science and medicine and who blogs at neuronculture.com, reports on research from the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, studying "orchid children."   "Orchid children" are one to three-year-olds who indulge heavily in aggressive, uncooperative and aggravating behavior that psychologists call "externalizing": whining, screaming, throwing tantrums and objects, and willfully refusing reasonable requests.

While most of us are hardy souls who can take root and survive anywhere, a small percentage of the population are children who are self-destructive, fragile and fickle.  At the beginning of this study, Marian Bakerman-Kranenburg, a professor of child and family studies, and her colleagues had screened nearly 2500 kids who fit the dysfunctional pattern.  With parental support they focused on the 25% rated highest by their parents in externalizing behaviors.  Research has shown that toddlers with especially high rates of these behaviors are likely to become stressed, confused children who fail academically and socially in school, and become antisocial and unusually aggressive adults.

But the prof had developed an intervention that she hoped would change the behaviors of these kids over the long term, rendering them useful and contributing members of society.  In an intervention her lab had developed, she or another researcher visited each of 120 families six times over eight months; filmed the mother and child in everyday activities, including some requiring obedience or cooperation; and then edited the film into teachable moments to show to the mothers. A similar group of high-externalizing children received no intervention.

To the researchers delight the intervention worked.  In a single year, kids with externalizing behaviors had reduced their externalizing score by 16%, in contrast to those who had no intervention, and whose scores improved ony about 10%, largely the result of age-related self-control. 

What was of special interest to me was the new interpretation of a basic and influential idea in psychiatric and social research, the whole notion of "genetic vulnerability." Supported by genetic and chemical studies of the brain, this model essentially rules the interpretation of behavioral problems.  They are viewed as gene induced behaviors--not environmental.  If you've got these genes and life treats you ill, you're more prone to them.  It reminds me of a film from the 1950's, The Bad Seed, in which a mother begins to suspect that her adolescent daughter is a heartless killer and she can do nothing about it. 

Recently, however, an alternate hypothesis has emerged that turns the old one inside out.  The new model proposes that these genes can create liabilities, but they can also enhance ability and function in favorable settings.  A lot of the evidence has been mounting for years, but it was both overlooked and ignored, largely because of the focus upon dysfunction.  As one psychologist at the University of London states, "Most work in behavioral genetics has been done by mental-illness researchers who focus on vulnerability.  They don't see the upside because they don't look for it." 

The really frustrating piece of that information is that employees and professionals with a dysfunctional behavior often take on a failure mentality, viewing their genetic heritage as the determining factor for their future.  As a result, managing the behavior can become even more difficult for them.

Years ago, when I accepted "fix'em projects" from firms, the kind of situation where a person has a lot of potential, but also makes life miserable for many people, I was asked to work with a young, bright partner at a top legal firm.  It was one of those situations where he understood that my task was to fix him, and he'd been worked over by counselors and psychiatrists for years, so understandably, he wasn't looking forward to the process.  Yet, he also recognized that his job and his future required some changes or he wouldn't be able to care for his family. 

Right from the start, I found him an interesting guy, not merely because he laid it all out, and told me that he didn't want to work with me, but that he really had no choice.  The issue, he told me, had been identified by counselors and psychiatrists as paranoia.  Although I'm not a licensed psychologist, I have a significant background in psych, including abnormal psych.  I'd also had long term experience with a couple parishioners who were so diseased as to be unable to hold down a job. 

The HR person hadn't informed me of his psych diagnosis and I was surprised by the immediate feedback from him.  I took it all in, asked a few questions, got a list of people to interview before I initiated coaching, and carried out the task.  What I heard in a nutshell was that he was a really brilliant lawyer, but he can be very difficult, exploding and even "screaming" at people (FYI: I tend to view such characterizations as an attempt to focus my attention, more than actual reality.  Most professionals are too smart to get caught in that kind of behavior.) 

After the testing, and interviewing, we sat down for a conversation, and I fed him the input.  He didn't disagree, except he thought some of it was a bit exaggerated.  The next session was basically a "come to Jesus party" for him and me.  I told him that I had no long-term experience with "abnormals" and he told me that "just maybe" I could be useful to him.  We were mutually expressive and candid.  I dug away for a while asking what he'd been told by the psychiatrists.  After he reported most of the shit, I commented something to the effect that that was the "downside," and wondered about the "upside" to his disease. 

"There is no upside to paranoia," he shot back.  My brain was working ninety-miles an hour, and I decided on the spot that he was dead wrong.  He was a corporate lawyer.  His fundamental task was to keep his clients out of trouble.  I was shooting from the hip.  I suggested that a paranoid lawyer just might be a damn good lawyer.  He could be very paranoid in behalf of his clients, and that was liable to be his real value.  An intriguing conversation ensued.  He'd never thought about that, never heard that paranoia might be of value, and didn't know what to think about the idea.  I countered with another insight.  Since I'd been a preacher and taught preaching and understood the psychological make-up of the great preachers, I pointed to a significant parallel.  Most of the great preachers are slightly neurotic.  In other words, they see more than is really there and they report it to their congregation in their sermons.  And, that makes them damned interesting and persuasive.  It was a home run.  He got it immediately.  In the coming sessions we discussed the upside of a lot of diseases. (Since then, we've learned about leaders and the constructive use of narcissism. Narcissism is not always bad.  It just needs to be managed for the sake of personal success in the organization.)

One of the intriguing results, which I didn't have to work with very much, was his reputed blow-ups, explosions and difficulties.  The new frame of reference gave him so much satisfaction, that he devoted himself to his practice.  He remains a friend, a successful lawyer, and largely manages his paranoia.  All because we reframed his disease.  A dysfunctional personality structure, but a career success.

The point of all this is that interventions are very often reframings of conventional wisdom.  Real growth and opportunity typically challenge conventional wisdom.  And sometimes that conventional wisdom is built on a superstructure of professional training.  That doesn't necessarily mean the education was divinely inspired.

---

What the New Neuroscience Tells Us About Stress Management

Reading a science article in this morning's NYTimes magazine, I was struck by how much new and useful information on stress relief is available today.  More than 25 years ago I taught an occasional night school course on stress management.  At that time we knew a lot about biofeedback, the skills of emotion management and how our perceptions play a huge role in building or deescalating personal stress.  I knew that I usually felt stress in my gut first, often long before I could name it.  That, of course, made it possible for me to start managing my stress before it built up.  I also knew that if I was on a creative jag and had come to a dead-end, there were several basic options: sleep, exercise and good nutrition.  

For example, project development can be stressful.  My modus operandi has been habituated over the years.  When working on a project, I usually dig up as much data as possible and start writing.  Usually the act of writing surfaces all kinds of issues, makes mental connections, offers other suggestions, and pushes me to dig up further data.  The rule is obvious:  stop thinking and planning and just start writing. 

But sometimes the ideas won't come.  When that happens, I set the material aside, go about my business, and shortly before bedtime, run over the data and material again for 30 minutes or so, and then hit the sack.  Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, either in the middle of the nite or when I wake in the morning, the issues have clarified themselves--and resolved my stress.  Scientists tell us that though the body is asleep, the brain is busily making connections.  And that's my experience. 

I've also learned from practice that no matter how stressed I am about business issues, my project work or even personal or family issues, exercise is key to relieving that stress.  I am constantly amazed at how effective a brisk walk of 30 minutes to an hour (I can no longer jog because of an idiopathic neuropathy) can clear out the mind, suggest resolutions and enliven me. 

Scientists have known for sometime that exercise stimulates the creation of new brain cells as well as enhances the connections of those brain cells.  In effect, exercise remodels the brain, enabling us to deal more effectively with stress.  Cool, eh?

The Times article reported on fascinating findings by researchers at Princeton University.  As I noted previously, scientists have been aware that exercise stimulates the creation of new brain cells, but not how that took place.  In the research, the scientists permitted one group of rats to run, but the other group were not permitted to exercise.  Then all of the rats were placed in cold water, requiring them to swim, which rats don't like to do.  Afterward they looked at the brains.  What they found was that swimming activated neurons in both sets of rats.  However, the brains of the rats that had been on the exercise regimen were less likely to bear the marks of stress.  Generally, they remained quiet.  What they concluded was that the rats that had been running had developed brain cells that essentially buffered those rats from stress. 

In a related study at the University of Colorado, rats that had run for several weeks . .  were less anxious and helpless despite the stress placed upon them.

The lesson is clear.  Don't quit your running (or in my case, brisk walking).  You won't get the magical reduction of stress after your first jog if you haven't been running.  But the molecular and biochemical changes will begin.  As I found out years ago, eventually the changes  become profound.

Successful careers are not built merely upon the so-called work skills, but also upon good nutrition, regular sleep, and REGULAR EXERCISE.

What Kind of Exercise Grows Your Brain Cells?

Those of us who are intrigued by the new neuroscience know that exercise has a lot to do with improving our brainpower.  That's especially useful information if you're beyond age 30 and have decided not to be a couch potato, but people of all ages can get into the exercise largesse.

However, according to a recent article by Gretchen Reynolds of the Times, some exercises make you smarter than other exercises.  She reports on research by scientists in Taiwan who studied what we can call permissive running (as much as desired) and forced running in mice.  "Allow a laboratory mouse to run as much as it likes, and its brainpower improves.  Force it to run harder than it otherwise might, and its thinking improves even more."

Twenty-one students from the University of Illinois took part in a test or either stretching exercise or running.  In a second test a group of elderly people took part in either stretching exercise or brisk walking.  In the six month tests,  "The stretchers increased their flexibility but did not improve on tests of cognition.  The runners and brisk walkers did." 

And for those committed weight lifters concerned with muscle development in all the right places?  It does nothing for the brain cells.  Somehow I decided that was the case years ago.

Although the scientists say that our bodies don't work exactly like those of rats and mice, there are lessons from the research.  “It would be fair to say that any form of regular exercise,” Prof. Jen, the author of the original study says, if it is aerobic, “it should be able to maintain or even increase our brain functions.”

On Carol Dweck: Why Your Belief About Your Intelligence Impacts Your Success

In a study of college students reported in 2006 Carol Dweck and her team wanted to know why what you believe about your intelligence significantly impacts your success.  Put it this way:  Is your learning and success about innate ability or something else? 

Dweck has shown throughout her research that what you believe about yourself can be sorted into two different theories.  The huge majority of students and professionals believe that your smarts is fixed, that you're born that way and that you can't grow it.  In contrast, those who believe that intelligence can be shaped, altered and extended will rebound far better from failures and can go on learning and building their smarts throughout their personal and professional life. 

What, practically speaking, causes these different results?  Let's simplify the research.

Those who believe that smarts is innate and fixed emphasize their performance.  Let's say your boss tells you, Jack, that he needs you to learn a very complex software program.  He'd like to access your expertise within three weeks.  You agree and start working on achieving that objective.  By the end of the first week, you realize you may have bit off more than you can chew, and you start getting nervous.  By the end of the second week, you're scared.  So you put in longer hours and work your tail off.  When your boss drops by at the end of the third week, he wants to know what the hell is going on.  You turn red-faced, clam up, get defensive, throw up your hands and just give up.  He sets off to find someone else.  You feel ashamed and guilty and tell yourself that you're never going to take on a challenge like that again. 

In contrast, the boss offers the job to, Jane, who thinks through the job, breaks it down into small bits, and says she'll try to meet the objective in three weeks.  By the end of the first week, she looks at her learning schedule, recognizes right off that she's failing to meet that week's objective.  Three weeks for that much learning is not feasible.  So she heads off to talk with her boss.  In spite of the fact that her boss is tactless, she admits that she bit off more than she can achieve and is not going to meet that deadline.  It was simply a larger project than she anticipated.  After an intense dialog she tells her boss that she would still like the project, but needs some consultant coaching and also needs to revise the schedule.  Her boss agrees to a "tentative" schedule.  With that agreement, she goes back to work.  She keeps her boss up-to-date on a twice weekly basis.  On one more occasion she has to renegotiate times, but finally achieves his objective after five weeks. 

What's going on here?

Jack, the traditionalist has no success, rolls over and quits the project.  That, of course, means his boss may limit his offerings and his future.  It also means that Jack is not going to step forward to work on risky projects with a lot of ambiguity.  He's got a ceiling over his head now.

Jane, the incrementalist, initially fails, but picks herself up, renegotiates, gets help and moves on.  She has no guilt to deal with. . . and she also has a wide open future.

I've exaggerated Jack and Jane for easy recognition.  If you've been in the workforce a few years you can readily identify the Jacks and Janes.  Furthermore, you may be able to put yourself in either's shoes. 

The neuroscience, with a focus on brain wave forms, also gives us two different pictures.  Jack's picture, in contrast to Jane's, shows little sustained memory-related activity.  He quit working at the project.  That means less to draw on and fewer connections in the learning process. 

So what?

If you're a business professional who tends to emphasize your performance, over the long term you're not going to achieve nearly as well as if you'd emphasized your learning--breaking every job into learning bits.  This is not about semantics, but about perspective, mindset and ultimate achievement.

It also applies to the family:  Don't praise your kids for their performance.  Praise them for their effort.  That way they'll be ready to go back to work when they fail.

Al Franken, Comedy, and Deep Smarts

The news is out in Minnesota:  Al Franken, the former "Saturday Night Live" writer and comedian will be certified as Minnesota's second senator by Governor Pawlenty.  Senator Coleman has gracioiusly conceded.  This will be a field-day for Fox Cable's Bill O'Reilly, but Rush Limbaugh is already ahead of the game, comparing Franken's win to the recount in Iran.   

Minnesota has had a wrestler for governor, and now a comedian for senator.  Supposedly, that's stock material for a big guffaw.  But let's take a rhetorical detour and assess comedy and comedians. 

Writer/comedians are a unique form of entertainer, contrasting to others in the entertainment business.  Comedy is far more difficult to manipulate than either tragedy or fairy tale.  Comedians have to have a lot of deep smarts to bring it all off.  By that I'm suggesting that actors, for example, operate out of a narrower niche.  They read others' material and attempt to make that material realistic.  Musicians, too, lack the complexity of writer comedians.  They're good with their fingers, their mouth, or their vocal chords.  Mitsuko Uchida, an internationally know pianist, but also the director of the Marlboro Festival, put it this way in a side conversation on a world-famous and veteran singer:  "She has nothing in her brain, but she is a fantastic coach."  Musicianship doesn't require a great level of deep smarts.

Perhaps I'm overstating the case for musicians and other entertainers, but as a trained musician who loves music I'm well aware that's not far off the mark.  Certainly there are some highly educated and very smart entertainers.  Let's assume that the college a person graduated from says something about his/her smarts.  So, to name a few, look at this list:  Conan O'Brien (Harvard); Meryl Streep (Vassar and Yale), Dolph Lundgren (started a grad program at MIT, as a Fulbright scholar), Yo-yo Ma (Harvard), Emanuel Ax (Columbia), Kate Beckinsale (Oxford) and Natalie Portman (Harvard).

As a Harvard grad who is both writer and performer, Al Franken fits in that narrow niche of humorists who both write and perform.  Mark Twain may well be the most famous, but in that select group of writer/performers you'll also find Stephen Colbert and Garrison Keeler.

Jokes, humor and sarcasm rise out of deeply sophisticated cultural expertise.  Intercultural theory provides especially intriguing insights to this rhetorical fact.  Intercultural specialists understand that humor and jokes pose a unique problem for emigrants.  Emigrants learn from the more obvious to the more complex.  They first learn to read the language, then speak it.  The next building block is more difficult:  learning to read and understand the nonverbals of a culture.  The final stage of learning is so profound that few emigrants ever gain access:  a rich knowledge of a culture's values. 

Why is this important?  Jokes, humor and sarcasm are built off the values of a culture.  To succeed in humor you really have to understand the deeply held values of an audience.  Entertained by a comedian's patter, their intelligence is not immediately obvious, yet success as writer/performer implies a deeply cultivated knowledge of the world and its inhabitants..

Since Franken brings a lot more to the party than Minnesota's former wrestler governor, Jesse Ventura, I'd take the off-putting comments of others with a grain of salt.  The best legislators have a rich understanding of policy, politics and performance.  FDR was a great performer, a genius at acting, reading not only the nation's tea leaves, but also it's international opportunities, and delivering successfully to a highly diverse population.  I suspect that Franken may surprise his audience with the depth of his intelligence--his deep smarts, that special form of critical expertise enabling professionals to uniquely benefit their organizations.

Only time will tell.