I'm in R&D and am constantly reminded by other coders around me that I'm not very smart, but these smarter people are constantly doing predictable and suboptima

I'm in R&D and am constantly reminded by other coders around me that I'm not very smart, but these smarter people are constantly doing predictable and suboptimal things in their very complicated ways and getting poor results, over and over and over. I think I've got suckered into a clickbait substack and a circular discussion on HN to cause various people to respond each in their own silos, asserting their own worth either as self-assigned intelligent or self-assigned stupid people. I'm a stupid person (not least for falling for that) but I get paid to think uncommon things, which turns out to be not only marketable but productive. Some of what the substack invokes is perfectly true: I get by on determination and crunch, to the point that I have to watch it (right now I'm experiencing health issues which I think trace back to the amount of crunch I can't resist doing, out of fear.) I daresay there's usefulness in reminding people not to just pursue the 'highest intelligence' path. From where I'm standing that's a ridiculous mistake. Higher intelligence can quite easily give rise to high rationalization and rigid thinking. This is probably why some tech folks go in for self-destructive behaviors like getting wacked out on ketamine in the belief that it will increase their brain plasticity. I don't get to do that stuff with drug abuse so I have to go about it in simpler, experiential ways. It's a 'right tool for the right job' situation. It's not broadly useful to be hyper intelligent or hyper plastic. Willingness to try and ability to care about the situation go a long, long way, and that's very much the purview of this substack post. Not a bad summary, I'd say.