Every time I hear someone bring up the “book smart” versus “street smart” false dichotomy it often comes off as someone trying to justify their own inadequacies.
What’s another good label for these types of knowledge so that we can avoid the cliche?
Is it as simple as having information and experience?
I have read everything on being a carpenter but I have never practiced, so therefore I am “book smart” when it comes to carpentry?
I guess this doesn’t really cut it because when someone claims their “steet smart” as a way to combat feeling inferior to someone else they have credited as “book smart” what they’re really trying to say is that they have knowledge that’s more useful in different situations? Or more practical situations?
The more I think about this the more it seems like claiming to be “street smart” is just saying “hey, I’m smart too, just in a different way” when you’re feeling a bit less than someone.
There's an obvious example in programming: one might read a lot about machine learning, without becoming a practitioner. Without actually doing some work, one's opinions about building AIs wouldn't be worth much.
What breaks down is thinking this dichotomy captures the state of play wrt knowing lots of things. One of course has to practice knowledge, if that knowledge involves practicable skills, if one wants mastery.
If one wants to know history, or philosophy, or... many of the actual large bodies of knowledge that exist... one needs to get comfortable very regularly opening books. That doesn't mean it's all that's required!
I only used "book smart" as it is an Americanism and this site has a large American and/or people who learnt to speak en-US. I don't think anyone else would use that term.
I am not calling out the previous reply.