You seem to have this implicit conclusion that being results-oriented is the better way to go. You highlight the non-bright people you know who are successful,

You seem to have this implicit conclusion that being results-oriented is the better way to go. You highlight the non-bright people you know who are successful, and declare that they are results-driven. You highlight bright people who aren't successful, at least with the examples of prizes you pick out, and declare that they are not results-driven What about the other permutations? I can see some of the valedictorians doing something that you don't account for in your description, nor really in your description of the dumb but successful: after identifying the prize, they determined if it was a prize worth having at the cost it demanded. They became valedictorians in part because there were many other prizes that they identified, but decided not to pursue. Not every prize is worth winning, and this is where a dumb, but results-driven perspective can get people into trouble. It doesn't matter what they are winning, so long as they have won. This strikes me as just as wrong headed as not caring about results at all.