4 ms·

Maybe if you define smartness as academic smartness, which is learned on a course. Practical smarts has probably declined as a result.

• bumby 5y ago
  >Practical smarts has probably declined as a result. I know the stereotype, but is there any evidence that “book smarts” and “street smarts” are mutually exclusive? Is it possibly an artifact of an economy rewarding hyper-specialization?
  • lmm 5y ago
    It's an artifact of wishful thinking. People will go to great lengths to avoid thinking about the fact that some people are better than others; it's the biggest "inconvenient truth" of our culture.
    • dnh44 5y ago
      >It's an artifact of wishful thinking. People will go to great lengths to avoid thinking about the fact that some people are better than others; it's the biggest "inconvenient truth" of our culture. I'm not sure if the whole book smart / street smart thing is a good example of what you're saying. Wouldn't that just be an example of people becoming well adapted to their environment (or in fact manipulating their environment)?
  • quickthrower2 5y ago
    I’m not taking innate ability here - which is something else - just there is finite time to learn so 3 - 6 years focused on academia is less time focused on other things.
    • bumby 5y ago
      Ok, I think that aligns with my statement about specialization. With finite time and incentives to specialize, I wonder if it pressures people against being generalists. I’ve often thought common sense is borne out of having many different, diverse experiences.