I think you don't really know what you're talking about. Sample size? What about sample quality?
People are generally - very generally - good at what they enjoy doing, because it sets up a virtuous circle: they do it because they enjoy it, and they enjoy the feeling of competence from it. And after having achieved this competence, they can start to tell whether other people might be better at it than them.
The mistake is to egotistically think that what ever "it" is, is the only metric that matters. There are lots of "its", and while there is usually some correlation, more than one dimension is needed to explain the hidden model.
The "smartest" person in the world might be a baker or mechanic or farmer. They may be smart enough to see that analytical prowess on its own isn't particularly impressive, especially when combined with social deficits; that the best one can hope for, in the end, is that the work of one's life is its own reward.
So much of "smarts" is just used for peacocking, jockeying for social status, in whatever pyramid we've embedded ourselves into. And we can hardly help it; we're genetically programmed to do it. Some are more aware of the trap we're in than others; but we all play along to some degree, because the penalties for refusing to play are severe. I suspect the smartest people are those who've found a way out of the trap, the hedonic treadmill, without being kicked out of the game.
People are generally - very generally - good at what they enjoy doing, because it sets up a virtuous circle: they do it because they enjoy it, and they enjoy the feeling of competence from it. And after having achieved this competence, they can start to tell whether other people might be better at it than them.
The mistake is to egotistically think that what ever "it" is, is the only metric that matters. There are lots of "its", and while there is usually some correlation, more than one dimension is needed to explain the hidden model.
The "smartest" person in the world might be a baker or mechanic or farmer. They may be smart enough to see that analytical prowess on its own isn't particularly impressive, especially when combined with social deficits; that the best one can hope for, in the end, is that the work of one's life is its own reward.
So much of "smarts" is just used for peacocking, jockeying for social status, in whatever pyramid we've embedded ourselves into. And we can hardly help it; we're genetically programmed to do it. Some are more aware of the trap we're in than others; but we all play along to some degree, because the penalties for refusing to play are severe. I suspect the smartest people are those who've found a way out of the trap, the hedonic treadmill, without being kicked out of the game.