Via Instapundit, this link to James Taranto writing in the WSJ.
I have a basic understanding of Relativity and
Chaos Theory, too, but I never thought that was an indicator of how smart I am.
Since the mid '80's I haven't really understood what is going on under the hood
of a car (at least to the extent of being able to repair anything) and there are
certainly more times when I would rather have access to a good (smart)
mechanic than James Gleick's book on Chaos Theory.
The point is, theoretical "smarts" is something of a fetish for a lot of people, and a more often a cudgel used to denigrate the lesser gods among us. It is all really a question of what you concentrate on. No matter how much I learn about JEE programming (my vocation) or painting (my avocation) there will always be some who knows more - and that is a good thing, I think.
The point is, theoretical "smarts" is something of a fetish for a lot of people, and a more often a cudgel used to denigrate the lesser gods among us. It is all really a question of what you concentrate on. No matter how much I learn about JEE programming (my vocation) or painting (my avocation) there will always be some who knows more - and that is a good thing, I think.
Humility, common sense, and ingenuity, in
combination, are much more useful characteristics but much harder to quantify
and rarer, and so less useful to those relying on "smartness" as a component of
their conceit.
