The great conceit of thinking you are "smart" is believing that because you are very good at working out consequences from axioms, you needn't know everything. If you know the axioms and the rules, that's it, you know everything.
I feel like I have to deal with this all the time -- people who think they're smart and reason their way to tenuous conclusions based upon a ton of seemingly solid beliefs. This rarely ever works, and it surprises me how people who base a significant portion of identity on being "smart" don't grasp that basic point.
There are a lot more confounding variables than there are times when things go perfectly. 6 months of direct knowledge/experience of a particular domain can go a lot further than a year of theory.
I think the underlying point in all of this is just that "smart and gets things done" isn't something someone can be trusted to observe about themselves.
The example he gives about FizzBuzz in the Lambda Calculus is perfect. If you're truly working from first principles, then you ought to understand the difference between a theoretical and an acceptable solution.
I'd say that in the context of software, "smart and gets things done" is at a minimum someone with a solid ability to extrapolate from first principles coupled with the ability to problem solve and think critically about what is is they're actually building. Experience helps tons on that front, but it's no better an indicator of future success than grasping first principles.
I feel like I have to deal with this all the time -- people who think they're smart and reason their way to tenuous conclusions based upon a ton of seemingly solid beliefs. This rarely ever works, and it surprises me how people who base a significant portion of identity on being "smart" don't grasp that basic point.
There are a lot more confounding variables than there are times when things go perfectly. 6 months of direct knowledge/experience of a particular domain can go a lot further than a year of theory.
In theory, anyway.