3 ms·

> prototypical example of the "stupid and dilligent," I think stupid is too strong here, and misleading even. It allows those who are clearly not stupid from r

• motohagiography 5y ago
  Indeed I would walk that wording back a bit, it was a riff on an oft-quoted famous quip about military officers: “I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90% 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 intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief." This "clever and lazy" group is distinct from the low cunning of the archetype I was referencing, but I stepped out of the boundaries of being charitable. Your criticism is legit, and I prefer to be held to that higher standard of kindness. Cheers.