Your clients aren't stupid

"Lions are just fruity tigers."

My question is whether this article is setting up straw-men, though not intentionally, based on a fuzzy perception of the meaning of words like "stupid" and a narrow look at what developers/designers/photographers/artists/etc are _trying_ to say with words like "stupid." "Stupid" and "idiot" aren't precise words, so we shouldn't build arguments around "ideal developers" who use "ideal language." Helps no one.

One could easily write a follow-up, "What Designers' Really Mean When They Cry 'Stupid!'" And it needs examples.

Surely "stupid" doesn't only mean "this person lacks intelligence in my field," and even if it did, it wouldn't reflect the usage people take on it in everyday conversation. Unless the article author means to suggest that "design sense" is actually in some way given to all intellects, and it's just a matter of nurturing it, as Socrates would, say.

I usually assert that a client is "stupid" when they overstep bounds. That is, "stupid clients are stupid." I want the client to respect their role as a client. For points like "graphic design," it should be handled in the contract, to some degree, how to deal with creative freedom and UI decisions. The client has input: most developers give their clients input. It's when the client realizes they have input but are unsure of the scope of it: (1) because they're not hired to do review wireframes, etc to produce a holistic picture (they're the client) and (2) they're trained at being untrained critics (meaning, as a designer, e.g., one trains or practices at being a trained critic: a client is hiring _that_: so, I assert the stupidity of the client when the client lacks the sense to understand _what it is they've purchased_ by hiring me).