That was a throwaway sentence by the article's author, one that perplexes me, because it has nothing to do with the article or Dr. Simon. It is a complex combin

That was a throwaway sentence by the article's author, one that perplexes me, because it has nothing to do with the article or Dr. Simon. It is a complex combination of usually disparate skills, all at a very high level, that allows him to do what he does. I think Dr. Simon's point is not "if I can do it, so can you", but instead that the things we normally value, quickness in thought (see: whiteboard coding) really aren't the best or only measures of a person. The ability to organize talent in others, for example, or the willingness and curiosity to endless ponder on a question for a very long time, have payoffs. For example, Oppenheimer produced almost no new science after his early career, but his absolute brilliance at running research had an enormous impact on science, probably greater than his research. For some reason we don't seek out that kind of brain. I don't know why. Is it because they are rare? I don't think they are. I see 'clever' people, and then smart people. The clever people dominate the meetings, make decisions, but often times it is the person brooding over a problem that sees how to better advance efforts. Can't implement a smart pointer off the top of your head, under pressure, in a interview? No hire. (this is something the friggin' C++ committee got wrong, for years, with auto_ptr). I see Ph.Ds chasing stupid ideas that will never be practical. Smart is good, but so is pragmatic, and seeing the 'right' thing to do, and doing that. They are different kinds of intelligence; we need both, but often only shop for the former.