Great comment. I appreciate the principle you're working towards, and largely agree with it. But I wonder if the analogy with Physics works well as a broad meta

Great comment. I appreciate the principle you're working towards, and largely agree with it. But I wonder if the analogy with Physics works well as a broad metaphor for "intelligence." The gaps between Newtonian, Quantum and Relativity model physics are singular instances of a peculiar, nearly paradoxical set of apparent contradictions that of course have yet to be fully resolved. Each is correct within its own domain, and the full realization of the implications of each requires complete commitment to the rules within the domain to the exclusion of the other models. So the analogy can also turn around and bite you here. If a researcher in Quantum theory were to get hung up on the apparent contradictions between her own research and the implications within one of the other models, she'd risk being distracted and lose the fruitful path of research within her given domain. In this case, a certain level of myopia is helpful. Did Einstein's tremendous resistance to Heisenberg and Bohr impugn his accomplishments in any way? Of course not. I don't think anyone would use that as an example of diminished intelligence on Einstein's part. Your broader point is valid: be open to other viewpoints. But at another level, taking up a position and defending it has its practical advantages, when the position/opinion shows fruitful results. In software, I think of DHH's 'opinionated' approach to Rails and how that has informed and guided the whole Ruby community. For many programmers Rails' implicit, "magical" approach to coding is not as good as, for instance Django/Python's more explicit philosophy. Both points of view are valid, but the strengths of each would be diluted if they tried to do both. I also think of the Torvalds/Tanenbaum debate over Kernel architectures. Deciding which is correct is way above my pay grade, but it seems clear to me that Linus had to take up a position here and commit to it in order for Linux to thrive the way it has. I also think of the common criticism of JavaScript's OO structures, that it's a confusing hybrid of Prototypical and Classical OOP, leading to inconsistent or confusing structures. Perhaps a thorough commitment to one or the other would have been better? So, on the one hand a certain openness and teachability is necessary, but then at strategic points in the development of an idea, a certain stubbornness and myopia seems to be equally important to the ultimate execution of a vision.