I don't think I see what you were going for--in my reading it's one of those things that sounds wise briefly but doesn't hold up very well.

I think of the "smart people weakness" as potentially being"the same"--the things I might admit to in the sort of ridiculous job interview question where they ask your greatest weakness. They tie into an identity and a thinking style: "I'm a nerd, I want to do too much research and need to be better at identifying when what I have is good enough"; "I've been told all my life that great things are expected of me and I haven't taken as many risks as I should have because I wanted those paths to be open to me."; "I've always been so focused on my studies that I didn't have as full a personal life as I would have liked." (Equally-spun rephrasings available ad infinitum.) Geeks half-brag about this sort of thing--implying that the weaknesses were necessary tradeoffs for (or accompaniments to) the strengths, which should be obvious to and respected by all, naturally.

But not so much, for the weaknesses I have that I wouldn't consider to be mainly affecting smart people (among others, a tendency to self-sabotage, also overwhelming feelings of inefficacy and self-doubt--so yes, I'm just wonderful at those interview questions). I don't think they tie in very strongly to my identity, they're not complements to strengths, they reflect nearly nothing but negatively on me. I wouldn't consider them "the same" at all.