Aren't there plenty of Ph.D.'s who can't fix their cars? Sure, but the majority of them could learn if they were so inclined.
Inclination is a key component of effective intelligence. Saying "I could be good at math if I was inclined towards it" is basically equivalent to saying "I could be a big hit at parties if I was more charming" or "I could have a good jump shot if I cared about practicing."
The truism in this article seems to be something like pg's hypothetical:
Imagine if aliens came to Earth, and told us that they'd destroy our planet unless all the Physics PhDs got became experts in French Literature, and all the French Literature PhDs because experts in Physics, and they gave us a year to do it. The physicists would not be happy, but the French literature experts would really be scared.
I've been thinking a little about that example. And I really don't think it gets at the core of the issue. The problem with that example is that academic disciplines, whether it's due to an inferiority complex or what, have decided to model themselves so much after the hard sciences, so that of course the hard science experts are going to be able to study any of those disciplines and acquire a PhD. It's because the programs were modeled after the hard sciences.
Take a different example: if aliens came to earth and demanded that all PhD physicists get as good at sculpting, drawing, and designing as the world's foremost artists; and all the artists must acquire PhD's in physics. I'm not sure who would do better as there's not a clear hierarchy between the disciplines. They're different fields, catering to people with different interests and talents.
Indeed, among the physicists we might also find those who are moved to tears by Baudelaire, and among the critics of French literature those unafraid of contour integrals.
For every Terence Tao there are a thousand Nameless Toilers. So intelligence, for most people, is not a rocket to ride but a bar to clear.
Then, given enough of a brain to be taught, the more important question: do you have the stomach to learn?
I'm not sure sculpting/drawing are the best examples. You can't learn them by memorizing information, you need the motor skills as well. I'm sure they'd do well at designing to the extent that it can be learned from books.
The extreme example would be Mozart and Gauss. I don't think either one could have become one another, even though both of them possessed one-in-billion IQs.
So the joke is that the physicists have the hubris to think that French Literature isn't hard, right?
It would be an incredible feat for anyone to learn French in a year (well enough to critique its great literature) and also become expert in the existing body of knowledge of literary criticism. Much less a physicist, who probably dreads writing a 10-page conference paper because there's too much prose in it.
Most adults can learn a new language in ~6 months; the real test is how much substance is in each topic. Anyway the real joke about Phd's in Literature has to do with the perception that it's total BS. The great example of this is so-called ‘postmodern generator’ written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars. Using this software (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo) NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s generated a brilliantly meaningless article which was accepted by a cultural criticism publication, Social Text Vol. 46/47, pp. 217-252 (spring/summer 1996). (Sokal, A., 2007, http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/, accessed May 13, 2007)
1. There are very different learning curves in different fields, but you have to remember that all of your competition in a given field is on the same curve.
2. Physics relies on specialized skills, while French Literature relies on generalized skills.
3. The basics of literary skill are reading, writing, and speaking. You practice those every day and have been for all of your adult life. How much time have French Literature PhDs been putting into math skills?
Inclination is a key component of effective intelligence. Saying "I could be good at math if I was inclined towards it" is basically equivalent to saying "I could be a big hit at parties if I was more charming" or "I could have a good jump shot if I cared about practicing."