My point is that being able to accurately assess one's strengths and weaknesses, ask the right questions, think clearly and effectively both intuitively and counterintuitively, etc. - in other words, efficiency of thought - can definitely eliminate the need for a lot of hard work.
There are lots of people who can pick up new skills easily. Knowledge is transferable, and if people are in industries that don't play to their strengths, then they're swimming against the current, to some extent. Which is to say that I'm a believer, to some extent, in "work smarter".
I've put a lot of time and effort into my drafting and technical drawing skills in the last couple of years. In part, because I like doing design work, and in part because it's been a good hobby to have when you've got 3 small kids to look after, because you can actually get work done while they sleep.
I don't know what my point is, really. But I've just listed 4 distinct professional skill sets, and I have others, if you consider music, directing, etc.; and I don't feel that each one has been developed purely through hard work. Intellect, previous knowledge, talent, etc., are definitely factors. And as for cash, if that were my primary objective, then it would really just a question of knowing where to focus, not of knowing how hard to work.
I would just amend your comment to be "My point is that being able to accurately assess one's strengths and weaknesses, ask the right questions, think clearly and effectively both intuitively and counterintuitively, etc. - in other words, efficiency of thought - can definitely eliminate the need for a lot of
UNNECESSARY hard work." And this is in agreement with how I believe the saying should be interpreted. And in that interpretation I agree with it 100%. The problem I recently discovered that I have with it is that it's not quoted or used in that context any more it seems.
Also, saying that you've put a lot of time and effort into drafting is to me saying that you've put in a lot of hard work.
A few examples to illustrate what I'm talking about. Here's what the saying
should mean, in my opinion. You want to learn to play an instrument. First ask questions, find out what people consider the best practice techniques, these can greatly increase the efficiency of your practice time. Actually use those techniques such as start slow and play it technically right first, speed will come later technique won't magically appear; use a metronome; Buy a decent beginner model so you aren't held back; learn songs that interest you because it makes it easier, but make sure you are constantly challenged; etc. These are ways to work smarter that will keep you from putting in a lot of hours of work that are unnecessary. But even the smartest guy in the world still have to put in massive amounts of woodshedding hours to improve his skills. None of the great technical guitar players got where they were without countless hours of practice just because they were smart. Hell, even Kurt Cobain spent huge amounts of time writing songs and lyrics and working on his guitar playing and he's not even considered good by most guitar player's standards.
An example of what the phrase shouldn't mean, but how it's interpreted sometimes. I have a task that needs done that I don't want to do at work. I tell somebody under me, who possibly isn't qualified to be doing it or at least can't do it as well as I can, to do it for me. I delegate the majority of the work I should be doing myself and when asked about it I just lean back in my chair, smile, and say "Work smarter, not harder."
Or how about I'm in school and I have a test coming up. Instead of reading the text throughout the semester, doing the homework, asking questions, paying attention in class, etc. I copy the answers of the homework from friends, somehow get the questions to the test ahead of time, and get by with a B or even an A. When a student who does put in the time, and got a B asks how you got an A when he knows you never study you simply reply "Work smarter, not harder."
I've witnessed the phrase used more often in the latter type scenarios than the former. And as I mention, it gives off the impression that if you are working hard you must not be smart. Einstein, Newton, Tesla, Feynman, Schrodinger, are these people who you think worked 20 hour weeks because they were so smart they didn't have to work as hard as the rest of us?
I enjoyed that article and I agree with a lot of it, if not all of it, but I don't think it applies to what I was saying. I agree that people should find a field they not only enjoy, but are good at. This will make sure they are, as you say, going with the current instead of against it. But no matter which direction the current is going you still need to paddle if you want to get anywhere worth being. And if you're lucky enough to find a swifter current than most, but choose to not paddle, you're only hurting yourself by not achieving your potential.
