[MontgomeryPi2]

The article made me think of General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord's officer classification: "I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."

[Jensson]

That jives very well with the first point:

"Be audacious. Most people who are talented or smart are scared of doing things."

In general smart people want to understand what they are doing before they do it. This means you can often beat them at a task by simply doing without understanding, which is why General Kurt told us to be wary about such people.

[nine_k]

Doing without understanding usually misses some "obvious" detail, and that makes the whole thing a lot less useful, if not harmful.

[rgavuliak]

Yeah, I've seen too many bs created by people that thought they were much smarter than in reality.

[neonlights84]

And the worst of all are the hardworking lazy ones, who exist only to swallow up their compatriots in universe-unravelling paradoxes.

[eschulz]

Napoleon apparently joked about the importance of having dumb and energetic soldiers shot.

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/12/27/dumb-and-gets-thin...

[vinnyvichy]

This sounds like a significant refinement over KvH-E quadrants above, and indeed highlights the danger of the dumb and not-lazy. But it's probably not Napoleon..

Napoleon would more likely say something along the lines of.. "Know when to go for it and when to take it slow."

After all, he signalled his willingness to work hard with his bee emblem.

[justanotherjoe]

Your comment makes me think of taoism's wu wei. Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing. And when you do do nothing, you'll look like a lazy person for sure.

[kamaal]

Isn't taoism more on the lines of making things happen by design and not fight through things to get them done?

Sure many times that means doing nothing at all, But most of the times it means working with things in a way that things are so well designed you just flow with things instead of fighting through the system to make them happen.

[KolenCh]

A minor flaw: it is said in a way like it is 2 choices out of 4, which gives you 6 combinations. But it is more like two choices each for 2 independent “axes”, which gives you 4 combinations, exhausted in the elaboration that follows.

(For example, someone who is both clever and stupid, and someone who is both hardworking and lazy don’t make sense.)

[lloydatkinson]

Wow - seems very apt for software engineers too.

[vasergen]

Nice, like that!

I am thinking is in IT industry 'too clever and hardworking'the same as 'stupid and hardworking'?

[rstuart4133]

> I am thinking is in IT industry 'too clever and hardworking' the same as 'stupid and hardworking'?

The thought of someone stupid turning out the most code in a team used to make me shudder. But then I got some not so bright people on my team.

It's true that stupid left to their own devices turns out terrible code. But they have their strengths. Janitors for example are often classed as stupid, but a stupid and hardworking janitor will do a far better job than of the other types.

The key insight (and this was pointed out to me by of all people someone in marketing, designing campaigns to make products appeal to certain crowds), is janitors like routine. I guess stupid doesn't like to be made to think, they like to do what they excel at, which is doing. So the key to making it work is the smart (and preferably lazy) people design the routine, and the stupid execute it. You can rely on stupid and hardworking to do it consistently and quickly.

In programming terms, this means you need strong coding rules, lots of examples, thorough reviews which takes enormous amount of patience. A smart programmer will cafe at the oversight required, as it prevents exploration of ideas. Give stupid that and something remarkable happens - they produce very good code. Why is it good? Because it's so simple. Anyone can understand it. It takes almost no effort to read.

An even more surprising thing happens when you get them to design UI's, as in "I want a form that takes in X and does Y with it". Again, what they come us with is so simple, my grandmother could use it. Stupid people don't design complex things. Give them anything more complex than a single form and you are asking for trouble of course, as they can't zoom out and pull in the big picture, then zoom back in and execute it.

So it's horses for courses. Stupid hardworking take a lot of investment in management time. They reward that in the long term by turning out a lot of code. But you need a cookie cutter task that lasts for years at least to make the investment pay back. They don't work in a consulting where novel short term tasks are the rule. But you'll find them happily toiling away in bureaucracies, and being paid stuff all for the privilege of being the backbone of the organisation. Which explains the why stupidest thinks we have to deal with in life are bureaucracy. The people you are dealing with aren't paid to think.

[lencastre]

Reminds of the Gervais Principle