41–50 of 72 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politics require social skills, being smart is detrimental because it lets you see thru all the bullshit.
If you were smart, wouldn't you know how to optimally deal with bullshit?
For example, how do you react to inherently unfair situations, someone taking advantage of someone else? If you start picking on people good politicians will quickly “plausibility deniability” you out of the equation.
It’s much easier to accept (with a bit of anger) that you made a mistake in your program that bring defaced due to your “judgement being clouded by anger”.
You may be smart enough to even understand what you have to do, but it will take practice to do it well even if you understand it conceptually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the issue is that most people do not make enough money to live comfortably, stash some away, and not worry. For example, if someone wants to own a home in a major cosmopolitan city in the United States, then they must be extremely wealthy.
If you can't afford a home in "a major cosmopolitan city" then you probably shouldn't be there.
There is a more basic reason missed by the article: many smart, hardworking people don't know how to sell. Almost everything in life, regardless of what you work on, is selling and no one is born with this particular skill set. You learn it like any other. It was likely the single most valuable skill I (eventually) learned, as a "smart hardworking people" by nature.
Its called charisma and some people are just born with it. But you can also work on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the issue is that most people do not make enough money to live comfortably, stash some away, and not worry. For example, if someone wants to own a home in a major cosmopolitan city in the United States, then they must be extremely wealthy.
If you can't afford a home in "a major cosmopolitan city" then you probably shouldn't be there.
> 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?…
> " Not all who wander are lost. " I'm not really sure that quote means what most think it does. The source seems to be: “ All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be…
That wasn't the point of the GP.
> I'm not really sure that quote means what most think it does
Wandering is exploring a domain. Knowing a domain is part of forming a strategy or merely the goal in itself.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One would think that being smart should be an asset when playing politics, though.
I think you really illustrate GP's point in a fantastic way. Let's define "smart" as the kind of smarts that would be in abundance on HN: Technical smarts, rapid learning smarts, knowledge smarts, creative smarts, idea smarts. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politics require social skills, being smart is detrimental because it lets you see thru all the bullshit.
If you were smart, wouldn't you know how to optimally deal with bullshit?
I always found the notion that we have to climb upwards and always make more money to be a bit weird. As long as I have enough to live comfortably, stash some away and not worry I'm good, I don't need more. As such, I don't really get involved in most of the things that this post is about nor do I particularly care to do so either. Work is what I do in order to sustain myself, it's not my life. The minute I walk out…