I don't think he's lost much in the article by not descending into the rabbit-hole of developing a nuanced view of what "smart" means. I think it's a word used frequently enough in common language that the reader can do justice in interpreting it correctly and in good faith. Same goes for other, equally generic terms like, "she really has it all together" or "he's a pretty sharp guy". These aren't vacuous, meaningless statements, despite the lack of precision in their meaning.
Fair enough, I probably didn’t express myself well.
It’s just that the article re-plays the old “intelligence vs creativity” debate, and is full of naive statements about it. And you kind of want to answer: “you know, I think it’s a little more complicated”
