It seems highly likely to me that power brokering (i.e. social intelligence) and analytical intelligence are orthogonal skills (and not the only orthogonal axes on which one may be "smart").
"Smart" is inadequate as an adjective, because it leads people to say things like, "If you're so smart, why aren't you the boss/senator/president?" If we separate these forms of intelligence in our daily conversations, we might make it easier for the oft-exploited analytically intelligent to appreciate and take advantage of social intelligence, and gain more recognition from those who have social but not analytical intelligence.
> "If you're so smart, why aren't you the boss/senator/president?"
I think it mainly has to do with comfort. Most people don't want to step outside of their comfort zone to pursue political power. There's too much risk and not enough to gain from the time commitment.
Speaking as someone who helped with someone's unsuccessful political campaign, it takes a lot more than just discomfort to be successful in politics. I think the "just don't feel like it, but if I did, I could win" excuse for avoiding politics is like the "I could probably get in, but I don't want to be a member" excuse for avoiding Mensa. Both things are probably harder than they seem (though I only have experience with one).
"Smart" is inadequate as an adjective, because it leads people to say things like, "If you're so smart, why aren't you the boss/senator/president?" If we separate these forms of intelligence in our daily conversations, we might make it easier for the oft-exploited analytically intelligent to appreciate and take advantage of social intelligence, and gain more recognition from those who have social but not analytical intelligence.