Ironically, the more "smart" you are, the less broadly "knowledgable" you are. PHD's are very "smart" but have narrow "knowledge". Whereas a mountainman, or someone living on their own of the land might have to have "knowledge" about many small things to survive, but might not be the brightest tool in the shed.
I'd be careful with both of those generalizations.
PhD's aren't necessarily smarter than anyone else. On average, PhD's -- especially at top institutions -- probably typically have above average IQs. But I'd wager a guess that the same is true for non-PhD's working for top employers (or starting successful companies).
Similarly, while it's true that PhD's have very deep knowledge about a very narrow topic, that doesn't preclude them from also having a lot of knowledge about many other topics. Especially since intellectual curiosity probably correlates better with PhD than raw intelligence.
True, I was generalizing. I was using a subject I felt most people could understand in order to relay my point.
>> "Smart" and "Knowledgable" are often used interchangeably, when really they are sets that just so happen to overlap in some places.
Hadrian is interesting not because he's Hadrian and he was once a Roman emperor. Hadrian is interesting because he commanded to be built an enormous military fortification. The history of that fortification includes his motivations and that of his generals. There may even be a relationship to the economic circumstances of the time, and there were likely some interesting political ramifications. That's what's interesting. Hadrian could just as well have been named Buttface and there would still be something to study there.
However, in a wider context the history of disease, the history of technology, and the history of systems of thought do more to shape our world than the history of people. Yet, sanitation for example is generally ignored relative to the story's of people.
Despite the old cliche, you're not particularly likely to be condemned to repeat mistakes made by Hadrian from not learning that aspect of ancient history, on account of not being a Roman emperor.
Most teachers are ingrates.
I only learned to start to love mathematics and history after reading the works of non-ingrates and learning to play with the concepts.
We are conditioned to despise subjects which lend themselves to play and fancy of thought by teaching them so awfully. I'm actually mad at all the money spent on the teachers and schools who taught me. I could've learned more from a smart guy in 6 months than 12 years of public schooling.
But in defense, a lot of learning is remembering symbols (aka facts and shit) and recognizing them. But it's like learning "1, 2, 3, 4, 5...". You don't get the magic of operators and functions.
Another definition of "smart" is the accumulation of knowledge and facts.
The 2nd definition is what the BBC headline and James Flynn is talking about. He's concerned we're not "smarter" in the sense of not reading more books, and not knowing about history like The 30 Years War, etc. In contrast, when another writer like Joel Spolsky talks about "Smart and Gets Things Done"[1], he's emphasizing the 1st definition (aptitude).
So yes, IQ and knowledge are decoupled from each other and can increase at different rates. E.g. there are a lot of high-IQ physicists out there that can solve crazy equations but are not interested in reading a bunch of history books. In JF's framework, this makes those scientists "dumber".
[1]http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing...