>You can be surprisingly stupid if you’re sufficiently determined
I think one reason we're wrestling with this smart/stupid/success/fail subject is that these words paint with broad brushes. It's not just being smart or stupid, it's what you're smart or stupid about.
For example, I knew an uneducated couple who opened a small clothing store. At first, they naively sold merchandise for less than they paid for it. They calculated the markup on belts by adding $4, then adding $3. When I suggested just adding $7, they got angry and said no, you HAD to add $4 first, or it wouldn't work. I would have been fired for pressing the issue.
Pretty stupid, eh? Maybe. But they were smart, too, about other things. What other things? Some people get MBAs at Harvard and still can't figure it out.
I watched that couple expand into a small chain of clothing stores with an 8-figure annual cash flow, and retire as millionaires.
One can only wonder how long they would have lasted in a YC pitch session. My grandmother used to say, "we're all stupid, we're just stupid about different things." The same could be said of "smart," and I believe success reflects a correctness in this rather delicate dichotomy.
Family story: Supposedly, some uncle or some such of mine owned land and at some point some large company wanted to buy the mineral rights. They offered him like $9/acre or whatever and he said "Make it $10 and you have a deal." His reason for wanting $10 was to simplify the math: X acres times 10 = just add a zero to the number of acres.
He wasn't comfortable with math, but supposedly he made quite good money.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it difficult to conceive of someone to whom, even after discussion and contemplation, (+4+3)=(+7) is not obvious. I suppose there are such people wandering the planet, however.
Yes, there was a reason they did it that way. They were unable to comprehend that +4+3 = +7.
I found it "lacking" because it was tedious and exasperating to stand there with a little pocket calculator adding 4, then adding 3, to make price tags for hundreds of items, one at a time.
"For every person who says their company failed because they didn't listen to customer feedback, there are the same amount of people who say their company failed because they did nothing but follow the demands of every single customer."
Very, VERY important point. Some years back I had the experience of designing, from scratch, several dozen web sites for some state government agencies. I used to tell people, "designing a web site is like decorating a room for 50 people and trying to make them all happy." And for sure, if you jerk and twitch from every customer comment, you'll crash and burn, like the proverbial hound dog in a whistle factory.
The real question is not just whether or not you listen to customer feedback, but how you process it.
I think one reason we're wrestling with this smart/stupid/success/fail subject is that these words paint with broad brushes. It's not just being smart or stupid, it's what you're smart or stupid about.
For example, I knew an uneducated couple who opened a small clothing store. At first, they naively sold merchandise for less than they paid for it. They calculated the markup on belts by adding $4, then adding $3. When I suggested just adding $7, they got angry and said no, you HAD to add $4 first, or it wouldn't work. I would have been fired for pressing the issue.
Pretty stupid, eh? Maybe. But they were smart, too, about other things. What other things? Some people get MBAs at Harvard and still can't figure it out.
I watched that couple expand into a small chain of clothing stores with an 8-figure annual cash flow, and retire as millionaires.
One can only wonder how long they would have lasted in a YC pitch session. My grandmother used to say, "we're all stupid, we're just stupid about different things." The same could be said of "smart," and I believe success reflects a correctness in this rather delicate dichotomy.