I think the error here is in judging the absence of specific skills, and not in judging the broad absence of non-specialized skills.

In other words: it's wrong (and ridiculous) to judge someone for not knowing how to shape a flint, but it's correct to note that we should all have some general set of skills that aren't tied directly to our academic backgrounds or professions.

I think there’s a huge difference between being able to do something and being able to intelligently converse about it. The former I would not expect of people for tasks outside their specialization, but the latter seems like a more reasonable ask - especially if the demographic is college professors.

There's this common sense that creativity and great ideas come when you gather two "unrelated topics", maybe riding a horse can spark some new idea in a new field (ie. robotics)

Presumably you can use a lighter and drive a car though.

One of those two may no longer be the case for people soon...