Eh, maybe. But when the argument itself is a bit of an ad hominem what is one left with? The usual implication of the “argument” is that if one doesn’t think FP is all that great, it’s because they don’t understand it (and, usually, that they don’t understand it because they are not intelligent).
I don't think that's what the author wanted to say... And in any case it's certainly not a very generous interpretation of what the author wrote.
IMO, the author makes an observation of familiarity bias and resistance to change. These are just how humans in general tend to behave, and it's not unreasonable to think that these factors are in play.
Moreover, there is an overlap between intelligence and curiosity / openness to new experiences.
If someone is not particularly curious about FP, they shouldn't take it personally: nobody is suggesting they're not intelligent-- that's not what's being said here.
