> To be really good at anything means doing it a lot
True, but working smart is figuring out another way to do it that doesn't require skill.
For example, I could spend years and years studying chess to become a skilled chess player. Or I could spend a month or two writing a chess playing program that'll do even better.
Or I could train and train and get my 10 km jogging time down. Or I could get smart and get a bicycle.
is applicable to everyone.
> working smart is figuring out another way to do it that doesn't require skill
is applicable to the creative types. Ones who have the time and luxury to think and ponder, an increasingly difficult thing to do if you are economically dis-advantaged.
Doing smart work requires a lot of creative problem solving skills. And those skills are developed when there is a lot of input to the brain. And that requires a lot of time.
In the modern age, true poverty is the lack of time to sit and think.
You might want to revise that. Here in Seattle, with homeless living in tents on the streets, they have plenty of time to sit and think. They don't have jobs. Many spend their days in the public library, surrounded by resources for sitting and thinking.
The context of homelessness changes the dynamic quite a bit. Sure, you have lots of time to think and ponder. But, you have no work. So the question of smart work is moot. Also, those who are homeless, are extremely stressed and constantly worrying about their next meal or next shelter. It's not fair to equate the time they have to the time they can spend doing productive or creative thinking.
Be my guest and do it the hard way!
> True, but working smart is figuring out another way to do it that doesn't require skill.
There's also the old line "There are people who have ten years experience, and there are people who've had one years experience ten times over."
There's a big difference between "doing something a lot" and "deliberate practice" where you actually plan to progress and improve and excel at what you're doing.
I'm not any better at, say, washing dishes or vacuuming floors that I was 20 years ago. But I'm way better at programming, riding motorcycles, making espresso, and a bunch of other stuff I care enough about to "do it a lot" properly.
I hear "working smart" a lot and I think it's a bit of a fallacy. I think choosing what you do for a living or work on isn't particularly smart; it's just common sense. Find me any expert in a given field and tell me they didn't spend years honing their skill.
The people I have known who think it is one or the other never got beyond middling. This can carry you to a successful career, even at FAANG, but if you want to be an owner and not trade your time for money there are no 'smart' approach to do it without hard work
What a nonsense statement.
I've drilled a hole in angle iron with a hand drill. That is dang hard work. The smart way is to instead work to earn enough moolah to buy an electric drill, then drilling holes in metal is easy & fast.
Working smart is what lazy people do.
It's pointing out the meaninglessness of assuming you know why people are doing what they're doing. Training to run faster is a stupid way to travel 10km faster, if your need/motivation is just to get somewhere and not to get fitter.
Being fit for health reasons doesn't require that much exercise. I jog for health reasons, and there's no health benefit past a certain point (and in fact, you're wrecking your body if you do). I don't time my jogs because there's no purpose to going faster. If I need to get there faster, I'll bike or drive.
This whole protestant rooted idea in our culture that working hard is what yields results, even happiness, is misguided. Working hard is something you can control and dedication can set you apart/add advantage, but as you point out, strategy, and I'll add luck, add significantly to your success for a lot of ventures you may take on life. If you enjoy working hard then by all means do it but don't think it is any sort of assured pathway to success or even happiness.