Speaking from my own experience, I think it's very important to have a balanced view of the fact that you are smart. i.e. you shouldn't be ignorant of it.
If you "play" competitively in any of the fields, being ignorant of your own strength is a big disadvantage in my opinion.
How would you see using the knowledge that you are smart to your advantage in a given field? You still have to do the work? (my line of thinking is something like: You produce what you produce in your field. To me the effort you put in matters the most. Smart is a meta quality to your work)
Yes it is a meta quality, and that's why it's not irrelevant. For instance, when told something is "hard", you can calibrate yourself on what that means. You also get the correct sense of what's possible and what's not, in what amount of time. This helps a ton with planning and decision making.
Thanks for clarifying. I am not sure how important it is to know you are “smart” vs just doing what comes natural in a given situation. It’s just how you will work problems. But I do think there is something there, about being Meta-analytical. I think good leaders have this. The ability to be two feet above a battlefield. I am not convinced it’s completely even a “smart” thing so much as a distinct problem solving methodology that works well (which might just make you smart based on the observables). I am rambling, anyhow. This was a cool thread in general.
If you "play" competitively in any of the fields, being ignorant of your own strength is a big disadvantage in my opinion.