Maybe "smart" people have learned how to be passionate and/or motivated about topics, rather than have some increased capacity for learning.
And maybe "great" leaders have figured out how to make a boring topic interesting for their ICs.
One thing I've learned over my time in tech is that it's a lot easier to tap into someone's ego than it is to tap into their inherent interest in their job. People might be interested in preserving their ego more than they like the actual work involved in building/maintaining a random service.
Reading through The Neuroscience of Intelligence it seems there's some evidence in support of the efficient brain hypothesis, which from what I took away indicated that there were physiological differences in the amount of energy used by the brain in a given task, and the general principle being that this differential modulates the amount of time individuals are willing to engage in the task and this leads to cumulative differences over time.
I feel like the Tetris study[0] in section 3.2 kind of goes against what you're saying here, but that's not really what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about, all else equal, good learners and good leaders can "tap into" passion at will, either in themselves or in others, to gain an advantage in practice consistency, which leads to improved fluency in the task. A learner's IQ ends up being a wash; if they have this skill, they can learn better than someone with their same IQ (or higher) without this skill (and I do suspect it to be a skill, as people modulate over their ability at learning over their lifetimes).
The Neuroscience of Intelligence is a comprehensive overview of the state of the art understanding of the field of intelligence research. The paper you linked is, as I understand it, not research on intelligence but rather expertise and/or skill acquisition. I say this because The Neuroscience of Expertise talks about results of exactly this nature in Chapter 1.
The rest of what you say is too poorly defined to be a well reasoned model of how reality works at a fundamental level.
I got that paper from The Neuroscience of Intelligence, it's the study cited in section 3.2, so if you don't think its relevant, Dr. Richard J. Haier seems to disagree.
And if you can't be specific about what I'm saying that's wrong, I might start to suspect you don't know what you're trying to say.
No, I don’t think so. I have seen plenty of smart people who have no interest in a subject and find it utterly boring still able to rip through an assignment in 20 minutes that would take many hours for another student who is passionate about the subject. Some people are just crazy smart and they can rapidly understand complex mathematics. Other people essentially have no hope at all of understanding these things.
Well yeah, because they had passion, got to a certain level of skill, then lost that passion.
Sounds like it fits perfectly both with what I've said and what the submission is about, and again has nothing to do with "crazy smarts". Just practice.
This. Not to deny that some people are just smarter, a lot of "innate talent" has somethings going for it - early exposure, initial success and some sort of mentoring. This tends to make people passionate towards the thing - they're chasing the domaine from the success. Do it enough, they'll get better than most peers.
And maybe "great" leaders have figured out how to make a boring topic interesting for their ICs.
One thing I've learned over my time in tech is that it's a lot easier to tap into someone's ego than it is to tap into their inherent interest in their job. People might be interested in preserving their ego more than they like the actual work involved in building/maintaining a random service.