[Jeff Higgins]

I can't believe that article passed muster at Harvard. Er, uh, wait... I guess I can...

Mr. Shaw conflates intelligence with knowledge. The two are most emphatically not the same thing, although the more of the former one possesses, the more of the latter one can accumulate.

The examples he cites (increased correspondence via cheap postage in the U.K., rising I.Q. scores in rural America through increased connectivity, drop in innovation during Prohibition) are absolutely no reflection on increased (or decreased) intelligence. They merely represent a greater spread of knowledge (or a decreased spread in the Prohibition example).

The rising I.Q. scores in the example cited bear further comment. At the time in question, I.Q. tests were notoriously terrible, measuring one's knowledge of cultural norms and standard practices more so than intelligence. In other words, they tested knowledge, rather than intelligence. Modern day I.Q. tests have been developed to largely surmount these deficiencies.

His analysis of European explorers inability to find food in strange lands, where the aboriginals had no problem, is similarly flawed. The aboriginals' abilities were based upon local knowledge, and the Europeans' failures were due to their lack thereof. Intelligence played no role.

Very, very disappointing article. I guess "smart" can be "intelligent" or "knowledgeable", but please, let's not confuse the two. Knowledge is learned information. Intelligence is the ability to learn. Related, but two different things entirely.