And yet so much of the information people see on the internet is of only limited veracity. When you can't experience it yourself, as in a physics experiment, how are you going to tell if it is likely true or not?
Just the other day, some lawyer on the internet was explaining that "contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on". When questioned about his meaning, he provided examples that suggested he meant larger commercial contracts which are generally resolved by negotiation rather than in court.
How would a novice know to interpret this hyperbole correctly without having any experience with the ground truth?
No, I didn't mean larger commercial contracts. My anecdote, as Malcat noted, applies to any professional contractor or employee. I followed this principle even as a junior lawyer. And it has nothing to do with negotiation; it has to do with the 'stronger party' not wanting to take the risk/optical cost of enforcement.
And it wasn't hyperbole.
And what you said has nothing to do with what I was saying earlier. If anything it proves my point that critical thinking is required to discern good info from bad. Note for example that Malcat is not a lawyer, but is able to deduct from her own experiences.
Finally, even if (as I've said now) one needs education or experience, that does not rule out intelligence being a factor. No doubt, the smarter you are, the better you can (1) figure out for yourself the commercial realities of the world, if you are so minded; (2) predict how an entity will behave in contractual negotiations (if any).
That's all I (and the article) am saying. Intelligence helps in this world - ever more so now that it's becoming more and more complex. The great thing about having more information, more stratification, is that the pay-off for being 'smart' has never been greater. Of course you could replace 'smart' with beautiful, athletically talented, musically talented, etc or any other good attribute that gives you a competitive advantage.