I think most people in this thread misunderstood the meaning behind the post (or maybe I did). This isn't about one's superiority, it's about the fact that there aren't enough people interested in talking about ideas.
People here said that someone like that would get bored if others picked the wrong topics. I don't think so. Even when I don't have a direct interest in a topic, I'm always open to learning more. But as you said, and I think this is what the article meant, many people do not have the habit of intellectual discussion. Yes, they are able to communicate, but their interests are shallow.
There was an argument here about how there's no difference between citing Plato and knowing everything about Manchester United (I think this is what MU meant). It depends. If you are only citing Plato because this is what you were taught, then there is no difference. It's a big difference if you cite Plato when you're trying to figure out why something is the way it is and you find out he had similar interests and ideas about it. The key isn't the imitation itself, but the reason why it's done. Otherwise, it's just another cargo cult.
I don't know if it's laziness of mind, cheap dopamine or something else, but it's rare to meet someone with real interests, one who's passionate about struggling with ideas, playing with them, discussing them.