This is a reasonable statement about what mainstream psychology says is a consequence of IQ (the operationalization of "intelligence" among psychologists). Having some of the mental faculties tapped by IQ tests generally results in more accumulation of the kind of knowledge imparted by school lessons or self-study, so that adult IQ tests have a lot of item content that consists of tests of knowledge.

But cognitive psychologists point out that intelligence (I would say "IQ") does not imply rationality.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238...

http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog...

The behavioral economists who study judgment under uncertainty repeatedly replicate results showing that high-IQ individuals are very capable of making irrational, inexpedient decisions. And even when challenged about those decisions, most people persist in their irrational thinking.

There is also a widely replicated result in psychological research showing that most people overestimate their competence in most domains.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

So it shouldn't suprise any of us that most online discussion consists of people expressing opinions that they are more confident about than is warranted by the evidence supporting the opinions.

Ultimately you have to judge any argument by what it says, not who said it.

This is the best cultural way that HN can support the development of rationality among its participants. It happens that I am self-taught in the psychological literature I have just mentioned. I am fortunate, in my community service work, to have acquaintance with several Ph.D. psychologists who provide me with reading suggestions and bounce ideas off me. They like the working paper on IQ testing I presented in public in 2006, and they encourage me to keep on researching. I in turn like all HN participants to feel free to ask follow-up questions asking for evidence and checking assumptions and logic as each HN participant posts opinions. I think Matt's point in the submitted article is well taken--law is a specific body of knowledge (a body of knowledge in which I DO have a credential and work experience), and many guesses about what the law is made by laymen are not correct. If someone makes a statement about a verifiable fact, it is a good idea for other participants to check the fact and verify what the best course of action is for a hacker trying to build a start-up.