[Lestat]

I really do appreciate your going out of your way to explain this. Exactly how you leap from one subject to a completely different one without ever seeming to violate a previous step in logic is truly impressive (at least to me). If I waited until I understood something that thoroughly I couldn't ever post. But I promise to work on waiting to respond until I can back things up a little better.

So your point does make much more sense now. But I still wonder how to account for differences in aptitude?

I think Andy's example of a piano tuner is a good example. Having above average intelligence or the ability to quickly grasp the techniques of tuning will likely make you no better than average among those tuners with a good ear.

I play poker every day with doctors, lawyers, judges, and other professionals who are clearly above average in intelligence. Yet they make plays that are on par with a blithering idiot. Some of these guys have been playing for years and genuinely care about playing well. Likewise, I'm sure you know players who are below average in math ability who are quite good players. In fact, I believe it was you who once stated that ability in math is only a small part of being a successful poker player. Wait... I think this is explained in the 100 yrd. dash example. I might get it yet. Thank you!