11–20 of 72 posts
This article glosses over the fact, known to us who have witnessed humans up close in business environments, that success is almost entirely political within an organization.
One would think that being smart should be an asset when playing politics, though.
This article glosses over the fact, known to us who have witnessed humans up close in business environments, that success is almost entirely political within an organization.
One would think that being smart should be an asset when playing politics, though.
From what I have observed charisma is by far the number one factor for success. It's more significant than hard work, intelligence/IQ, appearance, or the quality of one's ideas. You can put charisma behind an obviously stupid idea and get quite a bit of traction. It does often fail eventually but the charismatic founder often profits nonetheless and moves on to something else.
Charisma is so powerful that I find it disturbing. I've watched people who really ought to know better become transfixed at the presence of a charismatic person even if the stuff coming out of their mouth is nonsense. I think it works so well because it bypasses the rational mind and speaks directly to the brain stem and says "I am big alpha, follow me and I will get you food and safety" or similar. It speaks to the most ancient parts of the brain.
I don't mean to sound totally negative. Like any power it can be used for both good and evil. It's just that I've mostly observed it being used for evil in today's world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you agree that working hard will generate more opportunities to be lucky?
So does buying more lottery tickets. Surely, the odds at being lucky are better than in playing lottery. However, they are much less predictable than people assume. We tend to systematically overestimate our own influence and underestimate external factors.
> But as I grew older, I realized that’s not necessarily the case. A few people I know who are intelligent and have a strong work ethic have gone on to do notable things, while many others are doing fine. Unfortunately, there are some that drift along, unsure about what to do. Not all who wander are lost. This post is terrible advice, it's like a sermon from the Church of the Silicon Bubble. Smart but not successful?…
It was likely the single most valuable skill I (eventually) learned, as a "smart hardworking people" by nature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention one of the most important factors of all: luck. But survivorship bias means we assume all successful people hold a unique skill and wisdom that, if we only did the same, we'd find similar success.
Would you agree that working hard will generate more opportunities to be lucky?
This article glosses over the fact, known to us who have witnessed humans up close in business environments, that success is almost entirely political within an organization.
One would think that being smart should be an asset when playing politics, though.
A smart person might be good at school and individual contribuitorship, and so believe that they should naturally be good at political games as well. But truly, politics takes a whole other set of smarts and the things that make you an excellent IC do not much overlap with things that make you good at the political game: charisma, selling, risk-taking, deep emotional intelligence, extroversion, strategic intuition, sociopathy, commanding presence.
Many smart engineers can't even see see that the game is being played or they realize it long after the match has been won. They are not the players, but the pieces on the board.
This article glosses over the fact, known to us who have witnessed humans up close in business environments, that success is almost entirely political within an organization.
One would think that being smart should be an asset when playing politics, though.
``Thus is happened he became neither musician nor poet - - if we use this latter term in its every-day acceptation. Or it might have been that he neglected to become either, merely in pursuance of his idea that, while a high order of genius is necessarily ambitious, the highest is above that which is termed ambition? And may it not thus happen that many far greater than Milton have contentedly remained `mute and inglorious'? I believe that the world has never seen -- and that, unless through some series of accidents goading the noblest order of mind into distasteful execution, the world will never see -- that full extent of triumphant execution, in the richer domains of art, of which the human nature is absolutely capable.''
-- Edgar Allan Poe (``The Domain of Arnheim'')