Think different about Jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: Think different about Jobs

#71

Post by codelust » Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 5:41 AM UTC

ethank wrote: post #38

Wouldn't it be nice if the people behind the things we loved were as pure and perfect as our love for the products they created? It doesn't happen. I ended up great friends with someone who created a body of work I hold dear. He isn't perfect. His faults make the relationship between who he is as a person, as an artist and the body of work he's created complex. But that fissure between the creator and the created is…

It is not limited to just creation, we seem to be giving up easily the ability to grasp that not everything is black or white. There was much to admire and like about the man, there was much that was flawed about him. But, for most, it is either fully angelic or 100% the devil's cohort that they work overtime to fit him into.

Re: Think different about Jobs

#72

Post by cageface » Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 5:44 AM UTC

zobzu wrote: post #60

furtivefelon wrote: post #2

If people think that the reason for Job's success is because of his attitude is indeed lacking in intelligence. It is more correct to say that Job succeed in spite of his attitude. This trait is perhaps the easiest to emulate, therefore it will be sad if people emulate Job's worst trait and think that it will make them successful.

actually its both "thanks" to his attitude and other traits (intelligence, etc. putting it all in the same bag) if you aren't an asshole, at least a little bit, it's difficult to manage a company successfully. you'd be seen as weak and/or other sharks would eat you anyway.

Ed Catmull is anything but an asshole and he's run Pixar brilliantly. It's also possible to get people do what you want just because they respect the hell out of you.

Re: Think different about Jobs

#73

Post by csallen » Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 5:47 AM UTC

Human communication is a funny thing.

We possess fragile egos and staggering amounts of pride. Consequently, we take great offense if even the simplest of statements are misworded (regardless of intention). Consider the difference between, "Give me the salt", and "Hey, would you mind passing me the salt? Thanks." We constantly pollute our speech by adding phrases whose only purpose is to prevent offense. And anyone who doesn't is an asshole. An arrogant jerk.

You've heard the advice, common in books on communication or leadership, that the best way to persuade another is to avoid harming his ego. Allow that person to save face at whatever cost. Lie if you have to. Suggest that your idea is really his idea, and that it's brilliant.

Is this type of manipulation (and let's be honest -- this is manipulation) really so much better than blunt honesty? It's more effective, to be sure. If you don't already command the respect of a deity, you have to play this game. But for a Gates or a Jobs, is bluntness really such a travesty? Is it really the end of the world because Steve Jobs told you that your shitty design was shitty?

Re: Think different about Jobs

#74

Post by MostAwesomeDude » Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 5:57 AM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #63

Isaacson's book is a hatchet job, with many errors, and some downright dishonest statements. It is a shame that Jobs cooperated with that hack. In numerous passages, Isaacson will quote Jobs saying something perfectly truthful[1], and then follow it up with a claim that Jobs is lying. Most of the time, he doesn't provide any evidence that Jobs is lying, just the assertion, because, as Isaacson is careful to tell us m…

I suppose you'd have even fewer nice things to say about iCon, the unauthorized biography, which lacks the sugarcoating present in Isaacson.

Also, no, this isn't Startup News, this isn't Entrepreneur News, this is Hacker News, and I don't think you should discard what that implies about the community.

Re: Think different about Jobs

#75

Post by alexwolfe » Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 6:00 AM UTC

I think the real take away should be that we are all flawed as human beings. No matter what we do, how much we achieve, how great we become, we are still human and very imperfect.

There are certainly some detestable people on this earth, I wouldn't put Steve Jobs in that category even if I didn't agree with his treatment of others. There are much worse people out there, he simply had many faults.

I think its good you don't want to be like Steve Jobs, be yourself. If you hold yourself to a high standard of morality, even better. But don't judge someone completely based off this book, its hard to know what someone felt or thought unless you walked in there shoes.

Also, never buying another Apple product is a little short sighted. Jobs, while a great visionary, is hardly everything Apple. There are many many talented, hard working, brilliantly creative people that helped Apple become what it is today. I think it is human nature to want to point to a leader, a genius, "the man". The reality is that these products were created from the collective genius of many, not one person.

Anyways, my two cents.

Re: Think different about Jobs

#76

Post by anon808 » Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 6:26 AM UTC

wallawe wrote: post #57

theshadow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The "bad" qualities are what made them effective. If they didn't have them, you would never have heard of them. Please justify the above statement. How could you possibly know that? What is to say that these people would not have gone to achieve even greater heights if it had not been for their bad qualities? There is something incredibly depressing about this attitude that pretty much states that it's okay to be a…

Ex. 1: People would go the length of the world making sure that they accomplished every minute detail of what he had asked to perfection. Had he not been such a hardass and callous type person, I highly doubt things would have been done in the time frames and to the scope that he required. It's the tragedy of success in his circumstance. Take the bad with the good.

maybe thats true in some cases for steve jobs, but that doesn't have to be true for you. there are no rules. start a company where people would go the length of the world making sure that they accomplished every minute detail of what you had asked, to perfection by not yelling or demeaning them . . . it's possible. move things forward. steve (and others) have shown the world that you can use aggression to motivate folks, show the world that you can use an even-temper. nothing's holding anyone back. nothings written in stone.

Re: Think different about Jobs

#77

Post by ighost » Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 6:31 AM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #63

Isaacson's book is a hatchet job, with many errors, and some downright dishonest statements. It is a shame that Jobs cooperated with that hack. In numerous passages, Isaacson will quote Jobs saying something perfectly truthful[1], and then follow it up with a claim that Jobs is lying. Most of the time, he doesn't provide any evidence that Jobs is lying, just the assertion, because, as Isaacson is careful to tell us m…

Do you really think Steve Jobs, a man obsessed with his legacy, would authorize a hatchet job?

Re: Think different about Jobs

#78

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 6:37 AM UTC

wallawe wrote: post #57

theshadow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The "bad" qualities are what made them effective. If they didn't have them, you would never have heard of them. Please justify the above statement. How could you possibly know that? What is to say that these people would not have gone to achieve even greater heights if it had not been for their bad qualities? There is something incredibly depressing about this attitude that pretty much states that it's okay to be a…

Ex. 1: People would go the length of the world making sure that they accomplished every minute detail of what he had asked to perfection. Had he not been such a hardass and callous type person, I highly doubt things would have been done in the time frames and to the scope that he required. It's the tragedy of success in his circumstance. Take the bad with the good.

[deleted]

Re: Think different about Jobs

#79

Post by nirvana » Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 6:37 AM UTC

MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #74

nirvana wrote: post #63

Isaacson's book is a hatchet job, with many errors, and some downright dishonest statements. It is a shame that Jobs cooperated with that hack. In numerous passages, Isaacson will quote Jobs saying something perfectly truthful[1], and then follow it up with a claim that Jobs is lying. Most of the time, he doesn't provide any evidence that Jobs is lying, just the assertion, because, as Isaacson is careful to tell us m…

I suppose you'd have even fewer nice things to say about iCon, the unauthorized biography, which lacks the sugarcoating present in Isaacson. Also, no, this isn't Startup News, this isn't Entrepreneur News, this is Hacker News, and I don't think you should discard what that implies about the community.

When I started out, a Hacker was an electronics or computer enthusiast. Steve Jobs was a hacker, though overshadowed by Woz, of course. I am as well. I watched as the media took that innocent word, with its origins in the MIT student railroad club (see Steven Levy's Hackers) and twisted it to mean "people who break into computers and cause chaos". From reading PG's writings, it appears to him the word means technology enthusiasts, and I'm fine with that expansion. I'm well aware that there's an ideological movement out there that has been around for about a century that sees the labor of muscles as the only thing to value and that devalues the labors of the mind. This movement is incompatible with hacking, which is intrinsically an effort of the mind.

Re: Think different about Jobs

#80

Post by syncerr » Sun, Nov 13, 2011, 6:38 AM UTC

wallawe wrote: post #57

theshadow wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The "bad" qualities are what made them effective. If they didn't have them, you would never have heard of them. Please justify the above statement. How could you possibly know that? What is to say that these people would not have gone to achieve even greater heights if it had not been for their bad qualities? There is something incredibly depressing about this attitude that pretty much states that it's okay to be a…

Ex. 1: People would go the length of the world making sure that they accomplished every minute detail of what he had asked to perfection. Had he not been such a hardass and callous type person, I highly doubt things would have been done in the time frames and to the scope that he required. It's the tragedy of success in his circumstance. Take the bad with the good.

You're saying his way was the only to motivate people?