The problem with this way of viewing the world is that in reality, this guy is judging technical difficulty from the basis of someone who can complete a college

The problem with this way of viewing the world is that in reality, this guy is judging technical difficulty from the basis of someone who can complete a college master degree in one year less than planned, then concludes he doesn't generally have problems with the mathematical side of things. Well of course. Unfortunately this is no more helpful than stating that Muhammad Ali usually doesn't have a problem with street crime. It does not make a generalizeable approach to the problem. The actual problem he's describing is a lot like being a great fighter. It is not so much about utterly defeating your opponent in one narrow skill, ignoring everything else. It is about being a little better than them in one area and not fucking up in any other ("easy") area. You can be the best at giving punches on the planet, it will do zero good if you easily loose your balance. Even in already the artificially very limited area of competition fighting, you have to be decent at 10 skills, and good at one. In the real world to solve general problems you have to be decent at 100 skills, from tax accounting to sales, from algorithm analysis to team building. None of these you can be a disaster at.