There are functionally illiterate people who make millions of dollars per year. And there are people with sky-high IQs that collect subway cards and remain jobless.
When you start throwing around words like "stupid" or "smart", you have to provide some kind of context. For instance, I have a high ability to learn languages. Yet I only know English and a smattering of French. To somebody who speaks seven languages, I'm dumb. But to me, I just never developed that talent. Whereas to me, the guy who knows seven languages and can't create a web page is stupid (perhaps), etc.
Lots of people don't know or can't do things that I can do. Likewise, I don't know and can't do a lot of things other people can. If I were to dwell on this disparity, it would say a lot more about my ego than the human population.
Sorry, I'm hung up on your high ability to learn languages. If you only know a "smattering" of another language, how can you say you have a high ability to learn languages?
Having ability to learn and having learned are quite obviously different. For example, I was good at languages in school, and could easily have gone on to a language degree at a good university, but decided to do law instead. 3 years later and my French is very out of practice. It is (unfortunately) easy to have a talent for something and fail to cultivate it.
"Again, how do you know you have a talent for something unless you actually do it?"
You do a little of it, then compare yourself against statistical norms.
For instance, I have a talent at playing the piano. I took lessons for around 10 years. At the end, I was able to compete against other people who took the same amount of lessons and win a scholarship. Now -- I did not continue developing that talent, so compared to say, a concert pianist, I'm a complete musical idiot. I know enough to be dangerous. But of course, looking at some guy on the street playing the kazoo, he's the idiot compared to me, etc.
Same goes with languages. Usually there are standard ways of teaching language concepts. You apply the teaching for a small amount of time (say an hour or a few days) and then compare with statistical averages.
It's not foolproof, but it's more right than wrong. That's how statistics work.
This work-vs-talent equation works at all levels. I knew a guy who became a supervisor for around 30 employees. Smart guy, knew his stuff, but he couldn't spell. He, quite frankly, looked stupid compared to most of the people who worked for him. So he took the time and boned up on his spelling. He was no more stupid than I am -- smarter in a lot of ways -- but he just didn't see the point in emphasizing spelling until later in life.
You're always stupid compared to something else. The word "stupid" doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's always some subtext involved when you use it.
There are functionally illiterate people who make millions of dollars per year. And there are people with sky-high IQs that collect subway cards and remain jobless.
When you start throwing around words like "stupid" or "smart", you have to provide some kind of context. For instance, I have a high ability to learn languages. Yet I only know English and a smattering of French. To somebody who speaks seven languages, I'm dumb. But to me, I just never developed that talent. Whereas to me, the guy who knows seven languages and can't create a web page is stupid (perhaps), etc.
Lots of people don't know or can't do things that I can do. Likewise, I don't know and can't do a lot of things other people can. If I were to dwell on this disparity, it would say a lot more about my ego than the human population.