I think growing up 'back in the day' some of us may have known people that we viewed as smart and having just good answers about things in general (if not a top

I think growing up 'back in the day' some of us may have known people that we viewed as smart and having just good answers about things in general (if not a topic they had specific expertise in). Someone in the neighborhood older or a friend. But the thing is that was more or less earned. They'd say something and then over time you'd find they were right or not and so you tended to listen to what they said more and consider them 'smart'. Sometimes you'd consider them smart just because they had answers to things that you didn't [1] and often even because you didn't (pre-internet) have a way to see if they were even right at all. So it was easier for sure to run circles around people when knowledge wasn't so accessible. But very generally wasn't something (that I recall from my experience) bestowed on people based on things that vaulted them to prominence which could be attributed to luck. [1] A good example of this on HN for me is tptacek who amazes me with his writing and what he knows (that I don't) but honestly I don't know enough to know how correct he is and I suspect others may not as well. Noting that on a topic (that I will not mention) that I am an expert on a HN discussion is typically totally wrong many times.