3 ms·
I think he's conflating "smart"[1] and "good at communicating". [1] In fact "smart" should probably be restricted based on domain. You can be a brilliant viol
by philk 16y ago
I think he's conflating "smart"[1] and "good at communicating".
[1] In fact "smart" should probably be restricted based on domain. You can be a brilliant violin player but that doesn't mean you'll be a brilliant molecular biologist.
- dagw 16y agoI think you're conflating "smart" with "brilliant". I know several very smart people who aren't particularly brilliant at anything, and a couple who are brilliant at their domain, but really cannot be described as smart.
- philk 16y agoIf they aren't particularly good at anything, how do you know that they're smart? They could merely sound smart to you because they seem (for example) articulate and hold similar opinions.
- dagw 16y agoThey're very good at many things, just not brilliant at any. They have fairly deep knowledge in a very wide variety of fields, they can grasp new concepts easily, they can quickly construct and understand both sound and intelligent arguments and are generally all round very intelligent people. They've simply taken a more jack of all trades approach to things, rather than focusing on becoming brilliant at something.