Affirmative action for the stupid?
> This might even redound to employers’ benefit: Whatever advantages high intelligence confers on employees, it doesn’t necessarily make for more effective, better employees.
Uh-huh. Sure, it doesn't necessarily make for it, but it's a good indicator.
It really did read like it was written by a Luddite.
My dentist is stupidly inept at front-end development, a dancer is stupid at math, a front-end dev may suck at accounting.
Which one of them is stupid?
If someone is not good at _anything_ then it's a good bayesian guess to say they're stupid. If someone has high-achievement in one or more specialities it's safe to say they're smart.
[edit: Feel free to explain the downvotes! I understand the parent-comment was arguing for a "there are different types of intelligence" kind of theory, but I do think that the "aggregate smartness" is more useful/correct. Think of the smart people you know-- aren't they often kind of polymaths? And even things they're new to, they kind of pick up fast? And think of the really stupid people you know--- don't they kind of suck of everything?]
Competence (which is probably closer to what society is increasingly valuing as opposed to intelligence) is always context dependent (although society has also generally respected the idea of the accomplished generalist, see the idea of the Renaissance Man).
You're describing skilled vs unskilled.
There was this essay by pg where he called this concept "upwind".