Steve Jobs’ Philosophy of Life(theobjectivestandard.com)
theobjectivestandard.com
Steve Jobs’ Philosophy of Life
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/steve-jobs-philosophy-of-life/
6 comments
Does it seem odd to anyone else to position Jobs as an Objectivist in line with Rand's ethics when he was avowedly a Buddhist? Not everyone who makes stuff and cares about quality control is an "ethical egoist," or whatever you call it.
I don't think the author tries to position Jobs as an objectivist.
The author merely points out that Jobs' creative capabilities and self-reliance serve as a shining example to objectivists.
(I am not an objectivist)
The author merely points out that Jobs' creative capabilities and self-reliance serve as a shining example to objectivists.
(I am not an objectivist)
It does seem odd, especially since objectivists are about as second-handed as it gets. "Objectivism" is not a philosophy; it's a support group in New York for emotionally broken rich people.
Can you explain how objectivists are second-handed?
Most "objectivists" are intellectually unoriginal. They've taken Ayn Rand's philosophy literally because it sounds good to an adolescent mind and is illustrated with reasonably well-crafted stories, not on any actual merits.
One of the most obvious failings of objectivism is that it doesn't even make sense on its own terms. Ayn Rand's "productive elite" had a mix of artists, intellectuals, scientists, and business people in it. Yet objectivism as usually deployed is nothing more than apologism for the existing, status quo, corporate elite: one that houses few intellectuals and no artists. Ayn Rand conflates economic and intellectual excellence despite loads of evidence (in the society we actually have) to the contrary.
I would actually prefer socialism to corporate capitalism driven by private-sector social-climbing and bureaucracy. Socialism may tax the most productive in order to feed mediocrities. Ok, fine. Guilty as charged. But the status quo in America is to have mediocrities in positions of incredible power and influence and that's worse.
One of the most obvious failings of objectivism is that it doesn't even make sense on its own terms. Ayn Rand's "productive elite" had a mix of artists, intellectuals, scientists, and business people in it. Yet objectivism as usually deployed is nothing more than apologism for the existing, status quo, corporate elite: one that houses few intellectuals and no artists. Ayn Rand conflates economic and intellectual excellence despite loads of evidence (in the society we actually have) to the contrary.
I would actually prefer socialism to corporate capitalism driven by private-sector social-climbing and bureaucracy. Socialism may tax the most productive in order to feed mediocrities. Ok, fine. Guilty as charged. But the status quo in America is to have mediocrities in positions of incredible power and influence and that's worse.
>Most "objectivists" are intellectually unoriginal. They've taken Ayn Rand's philosophy literally because it sounds good to an adolescent mind and is illustrated with reasonably well-crafted stories, not on any actual merits.
Do you realize that some of the leading Objectivist philosophers have studied all other schools of philosophy, can speak about it freely, and understand it deeply? Would you posit that said Objectivist philosophers have adolescent minds?
Are you familiar with Mr. John Allison IV? He is an Objectivist and former CEO of BB&T (BB&T Corporation (Branch Banking & Trust) (NYSE: BBT) is an American bank with assets of $157 billion (March 2011)).
"Reasonably well crafted stories, with no actual merits"?
>Yet objectivism as usually deployed is nothing more than apologism for the existing, status quo, corporate elite: one that houses few intellectuals and no artists
You are absolutely wrong and have said nothing factual. No true Objectivist apologizes for the corporate elite - especially if said corporate elite earned its elite status through pandering to government and the status quo. As for artists, are you familiar with, for example: http://www.cordair.com/? Would you not call that art?
>I would actually prefer socialism to corporate capitalism driven by private-sector social-climbing and bureaucracy. Socialism may tax the most productive in order to feed mediocrities.
I would prefer neither - because neither system protects the individual. Both systems eventually fail - one being far more nefarious in its crony and duplicitous ways. At least the Socialists didn't hide what they were after.
Do you realize that some of the leading Objectivist philosophers have studied all other schools of philosophy, can speak about it freely, and understand it deeply? Would you posit that said Objectivist philosophers have adolescent minds?
Are you familiar with Mr. John Allison IV? He is an Objectivist and former CEO of BB&T (BB&T Corporation (Branch Banking & Trust) (NYSE: BBT) is an American bank with assets of $157 billion (March 2011)).
"Reasonably well crafted stories, with no actual merits"?
>Yet objectivism as usually deployed is nothing more than apologism for the existing, status quo, corporate elite: one that houses few intellectuals and no artists
You are absolutely wrong and have said nothing factual. No true Objectivist apologizes for the corporate elite - especially if said corporate elite earned its elite status through pandering to government and the status quo. As for artists, are you familiar with, for example: http://www.cordair.com/? Would you not call that art?
>I would actually prefer socialism to corporate capitalism driven by private-sector social-climbing and bureaucracy. Socialism may tax the most productive in order to feed mediocrities.
I would prefer neither - because neither system protects the individual. Both systems eventually fail - one being far more nefarious in its crony and duplicitous ways. At least the Socialists didn't hide what they were after.
What is a philosophy? What makes Objectivists second handers? You are pointing fingers and spouting hyperbole, without an iota of a substantive argument.
> Not everyone who makes stuff and cares about quality control is an "ethical egoist," or whatever you call it.
I agree. But, Steve Jobs was indeed an ethical egoist in words and in actions. I think this statement alone, supported by his entire life's work, testifies to his having been an "ethical egoist": “Don’t be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice.” -Steve Jobs (2005 Stanford Commencement Address)
or this: "Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle." -Steve Jobs, Stanford Address
I think that Craig Biddle's conclusions are correct - whether or not Jobs himself ever said he was or wasn't an Objectivist.
FYI, have you seen this interview with Woz: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/74391682/#ooid=8xMWJyMjoT9XMT... Around 9:00: "STEVE WOZNIAK: …And he did want to have a successful company, and he had a lot of ideas. He must’ve read some books that really were his guide in life, you know, and I think… Well, Atlas Shrugged might’ve been one of them that he mentioned back then. But they were his guides in life as to how you make a difference in the world. And it starts with a company. You build products and you gotta make your profit, and that allows you to invest the profit and then make better products that make more profit. I would say, how good a company is, it’s fair to measure it by its profitability."
I won't even begin to quote the Think Different(tm) commercial or Jobs' line of reasoning for why Apple did that entire campaign.
I agree. But, Steve Jobs was indeed an ethical egoist in words and in actions. I think this statement alone, supported by his entire life's work, testifies to his having been an "ethical egoist": “Don’t be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice.” -Steve Jobs (2005 Stanford Commencement Address)
or this: "Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle." -Steve Jobs, Stanford Address
I think that Craig Biddle's conclusions are correct - whether or not Jobs himself ever said he was or wasn't an Objectivist.
FYI, have you seen this interview with Woz: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/74391682/#ooid=8xMWJyMjoT9XMT... Around 9:00: "STEVE WOZNIAK: …And he did want to have a successful company, and he had a lot of ideas. He must’ve read some books that really were his guide in life, you know, and I think… Well, Atlas Shrugged might’ve been one of them that he mentioned back then. But they were his guides in life as to how you make a difference in the world. And it starts with a company. You build products and you gotta make your profit, and that allows you to invest the profit and then make better products that make more profit. I would say, how good a company is, it’s fair to measure it by its profitability."
I won't even begin to quote the Think Different(tm) commercial or Jobs' line of reasoning for why Apple did that entire campaign.
"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." -Mahatma Gandhi
If you are interested in Steve Job's philosophy of life, you may find value in learning about Stoicism.
> Montaigne was fond of an ancient drinking game where the members took turns holding up a painting of a corpse inside a coffin and cheered “Drink and be merry for when you’re dead you will look like this.”
Emotions like anxiety and fear have their roots in uncertainty and rarely in experience. Anyone who has made a big bet on themselves knows how much energy both states can consume. The solution is to do something about that ignorance. Make yourself familiar with the things, the worst-case scenarios, that you’re afraid of.
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/04/13/stoicism-101...
If you are interested in Steve Job's philosophy of life, you may find value in learning about Stoicism.
> Montaigne was fond of an ancient drinking game where the members took turns holding up a painting of a corpse inside a coffin and cheered “Drink and be merry for when you’re dead you will look like this.”
Emotions like anxiety and fear have their roots in uncertainty and rarely in experience. Anyone who has made a big bet on themselves knows how much energy both states can consume. The solution is to do something about that ignorance. Make yourself familiar with the things, the worst-case scenarios, that you’re afraid of.
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/04/13/stoicism-101...
"He embraced first-handedness or independent thinking: a primary orientation not toward others’ opinions, but toward reality as you see it."
This is such a simple concept, but it is probably the most rarely employed thought process in all of society.
Original thoughts are rare and usually lucky. No reason to look down on anyone for being original - there's nothing new under the sun. Independent thinking, however, is far more rare then it has to be.
This is such a simple concept, but it is probably the most rarely employed thought process in all of society.
Original thoughts are rare and usually lucky. No reason to look down on anyone for being original - there's nothing new under the sun. Independent thinking, however, is far more rare then it has to be.
It seems wrong to me that the post doesn't apparently attribute these quotes (and they are all from the same source) to Steve Jobs' Commencement Address at Stanford in 2005, or say anything about their context.
I agree. I would highly suggest pinging the author about that omission.
Steve Jobs was an interesting man who led an unusual and great life, and I have a lot of respect for him for what he's done, but I don't think his "philosophy of life" is very practical for average people. By his late 20s, he was at the point of never having to work again. He could work for fun. This doesn't take anything away from him; he worked very hard and produced excellent products. My point is that what worked for him doesn't work for most people. If you are a person like Steve Jobs in an average position, you're looking at a string of 6- to 12-month jobs and eventual unemployment once your CV looks like Ypres.
Once you're independently wealthy and don't have to work anymore, it's a really great idea to de-condition yourself from social climbing and people-pleasing and all the other idiocies that enter life when one has to manage others' perceptions of oneself. In fact, it's necessary to do that if you want to do anything great; otherwise, you'll be mired in mediocrity because that's what most people like and want. But if you're a normal person who has to pay the bills, to throw all of that social stupidity to the wind is putting the cart a bit before the horse.
If I have kids, I'm not going to tell them to "follow their dreams" or "do what you love, and everything else will take care of itself". We don't live in a good enough world for that. It's just not practical advice.
Once you're independently wealthy and don't have to work anymore, it's a really great idea to de-condition yourself from social climbing and people-pleasing and all the other idiocies that enter life when one has to manage others' perceptions of oneself. In fact, it's necessary to do that if you want to do anything great; otherwise, you'll be mired in mediocrity because that's what most people like and want. But if you're a normal person who has to pay the bills, to throw all of that social stupidity to the wind is putting the cart a bit before the horse.
If I have kids, I'm not going to tell them to "follow their dreams" or "do what you love, and everything else will take care of itself". We don't live in a good enough world for that. It's just not practical advice.
>> If I have kids, I'm not going to tell them to "follow their dreams" or "do what you love, and everything else will take care of itself". We don't live in a good enough world for that. It's just not practical advice.
There's more to it than that.
If you're going to do something, do it as best as you can, otherwise don't do it so you don't waste your time.
To do something as best as you can,... "you have to get it. You have to really grok what it’s all about. It takes a passionate commitment to really thoroughly understand something, chew it up, not just quickly swallow it. Most people don’t take the time to do that."
"When you're a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you're not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You'll know it's there, so you're going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through."
So how is this practical?
Let's say you're studying a econometrics major in university like I was doing. You know the introductory course's exams will be easy so you skip classes and just cram in the final week. You score 89/100 in the exam. Well good on you, but you didn't really grok what it's all about. You repeat this for the next semester and you score 78/100. Still a good mark, considering you didn't take the time to thoroughly understand it. However, this tactic will stop working once you get into higher level courses, where it depends on your total mastery of the fundamentals. You cannot just "cram" in the final week anymore.
I've only recently been able to understand why I was so good in the Engineering part of my "Double Degree in Software Engineering & Commerce", and so bad at the other. I don't spend much time on either's classes and cram only in the final weeks before the exam, but because I spend the time I saved self-learning the bits of engineering that interests me - even though it doesn't match the courses I'm studying, a few semesters down the road all the dots comes together. I didn't self learn anything econometrics related (besides stock trading, some might call it gambling, though) in my time saved from not concentrating on my econometrics classes. I did well at first, but now I am experiencing serious headwind and am not sleeping well at night.
This is why I am switching to another commerce major, so I can get another chance to really understand the fundamentals. If I'm going to complete a degree, I am going to (from now on) do it as best as I can. It means I will spend a lot more effort per mark that I will get. But I know I spent the time to throughly understand it. For me to sleep well at night, the quality has to be carried all the way through.
I'm sorry if you had to cringe at some of what I wrote, but I felt I had to write it.
There's more to it than that.
If you're going to do something, do it as best as you can, otherwise don't do it so you don't waste your time.
To do something as best as you can,... "you have to get it. You have to really grok what it’s all about. It takes a passionate commitment to really thoroughly understand something, chew it up, not just quickly swallow it. Most people don’t take the time to do that."
"When you're a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you're not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You'll know it's there, so you're going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through."
So how is this practical?
Let's say you're studying a econometrics major in university like I was doing. You know the introductory course's exams will be easy so you skip classes and just cram in the final week. You score 89/100 in the exam. Well good on you, but you didn't really grok what it's all about. You repeat this for the next semester and you score 78/100. Still a good mark, considering you didn't take the time to thoroughly understand it. However, this tactic will stop working once you get into higher level courses, where it depends on your total mastery of the fundamentals. You cannot just "cram" in the final week anymore.
I've only recently been able to understand why I was so good in the Engineering part of my "Double Degree in Software Engineering & Commerce", and so bad at the other. I don't spend much time on either's classes and cram only in the final weeks before the exam, but because I spend the time I saved self-learning the bits of engineering that interests me - even though it doesn't match the courses I'm studying, a few semesters down the road all the dots comes together. I didn't self learn anything econometrics related (besides stock trading, some might call it gambling, though) in my time saved from not concentrating on my econometrics classes. I did well at first, but now I am experiencing serious headwind and am not sleeping well at night.
This is why I am switching to another commerce major, so I can get another chance to really understand the fundamentals. If I'm going to complete a degree, I am going to (from now on) do it as best as I can. It means I will spend a lot more effort per mark that I will get. But I know I spent the time to throughly understand it. For me to sleep well at night, the quality has to be carried all the way through.
I'm sorry if you had to cringe at some of what I wrote, but I felt I had to write it.
If you're going to do something, do it as best as you can, otherwise don't do it so you don't waste your time.
This sounds good and I like the work ethic, but it's not the most strategic approach.
There's something immensely rewarding about doing a really great job at something, about building something that's truly great. Aesthetic completion, perhaps? I would personally much rather work in that way as well: always able to take the time to write great code, never having to do deal with legacy bullshit or ill-considered external demands that compromise the quality. But is that practical? Not for most people. Steve Jobs could pull it off. He was rich and didn't need to keep his job at Apple (one that he'd already lost in '85) so he could actually do great work, and insist on the same from others.
The strategic approach is to pretty much stop at "good enough" and move on to something else. That's what most people do at work, and I don't like it but I understand why people work that way. Doing one really great thing is much more rewarding, but it doesn't build a CV, and it only makes a career if a person has a lot more creative control than most of us get. CVs and reputations are built by sticking as many fingers in as many pies as possible.
School doesn't prepare people for this. I've worked at a number of companies that consider a 3.9+ GPA a negative in hiring because people with excellent grades tend to be those who insist on doing great work, not the mediocre work (in more quantity per unit time) that most jobs actually require.
This sounds good and I like the work ethic, but it's not the most strategic approach.
There's something immensely rewarding about doing a really great job at something, about building something that's truly great. Aesthetic completion, perhaps? I would personally much rather work in that way as well: always able to take the time to write great code, never having to do deal with legacy bullshit or ill-considered external demands that compromise the quality. But is that practical? Not for most people. Steve Jobs could pull it off. He was rich and didn't need to keep his job at Apple (one that he'd already lost in '85) so he could actually do great work, and insist on the same from others.
The strategic approach is to pretty much stop at "good enough" and move on to something else. That's what most people do at work, and I don't like it but I understand why people work that way. Doing one really great thing is much more rewarding, but it doesn't build a CV, and it only makes a career if a person has a lot more creative control than most of us get. CVs and reputations are built by sticking as many fingers in as many pies as possible.
School doesn't prepare people for this. I've worked at a number of companies that consider a 3.9+ GPA a negative in hiring because people with excellent grades tend to be those who insist on doing great work, not the mediocre work (in more quantity per unit time) that most jobs actually require.
Of course you can't apply anyone's personal philosophy 100% to your own life.
>> But is that practical? Not for most people.
But I think that particular part can be practical for many. E.g. when studying.
Here's the particular situation you were talking about:
You're in debt & working in a large company with lots of legacy stuff, you feel you could do better.
What to do: In a large company, what you really want to do isn't to make a great product, create very compatible software or anything. It is to do what your manager or what your manager's manager wants you to do. Listen to what they want and fulfil it as well as possible. If you are going to be a cog in a machine, then you strive to be the best cog in the machine you're going to be! If not, then read below.
This isn't a job you like. You're in debt so you need the job. First thing you do would then be remove the debt! In a mortgage? Move out and lease the house or sell it and rent, which ever saves more money. Don't go out every week, go out every month. Delay that macbook pro upgrade for another year. See a big discount on shoes? Buy a couple, but don't wear them yet. Eat the generic brand cereal. Cook yourself, don't eat out. If you don't have time, eat only fruit, vegetables and rice. They are cheap and easy to prepare. If you're going to save money, you do it the best you can. Once you get out of debt and getting some savings, you can refocus on getting another job. If many companies deal with legacy shit, then focus on getting a job at Apple. :)
So you don't really want to start another career at 45. Plus you have kids to take care of. You're a father/mother after all. Ahh, so you're a parent, and you rather spend time with your kids. Then spend your time with your kids! Be the best parent you can be!
Disclaimer: I'm still in university.
>> But is that practical? Not for most people.
But I think that particular part can be practical for many. E.g. when studying.
Here's the particular situation you were talking about:
You're in debt & working in a large company with lots of legacy stuff, you feel you could do better.
What to do: In a large company, what you really want to do isn't to make a great product, create very compatible software or anything. It is to do what your manager or what your manager's manager wants you to do. Listen to what they want and fulfil it as well as possible. If you are going to be a cog in a machine, then you strive to be the best cog in the machine you're going to be! If not, then read below.
This isn't a job you like. You're in debt so you need the job. First thing you do would then be remove the debt! In a mortgage? Move out and lease the house or sell it and rent, which ever saves more money. Don't go out every week, go out every month. Delay that macbook pro upgrade for another year. See a big discount on shoes? Buy a couple, but don't wear them yet. Eat the generic brand cereal. Cook yourself, don't eat out. If you don't have time, eat only fruit, vegetables and rice. They are cheap and easy to prepare. If you're going to save money, you do it the best you can. Once you get out of debt and getting some savings, you can refocus on getting another job. If many companies deal with legacy shit, then focus on getting a job at Apple. :)
So you don't really want to start another career at 45. Plus you have kids to take care of. You're a father/mother after all. Ahh, so you're a parent, and you rather spend time with your kids. Then spend your time with your kids! Be the best parent you can be!
Disclaimer: I'm still in university.
Disclaimer: I'm still in university.
I can tell. I would have written what you did at that age. Now I'm older and jaded I don't know if that makes me wiser or stupider.
In school, you can actually ace every course. In fact, it's structured so that if you have a good work ethic, above-average talent, and a little bit of luck, getting a 4.00 GPA is possible. It's not easy (I didn't) but certainly within striking distance.
In the "real world" of work, you can't actually ace everything and please everyone while developing your career at the same time. It's not humanly possible to do everything that you "should" do. If you're trying to do five different things, you're probably doing none of them well. If you're trying to "be the best cog you can be", you won't have any energy left for the side projects that might lead to liberation from your boring corporate job. That might be the right approach; maybe your boring corporate job is one rung below a very interesting job in the same company. (Not all corporate jobs suck.) It might not be. But you have to pick and choose. What are you going to do a great job of, what are you going to get by on "good enough", and what can you cut (perhaps an unfruitful side project) for the time being?
Being "the best cog in the machine" doesn't provide much reward over being a marginally acceptable cog. You might get a 8% raise instead of 5%. Big whoop; not worth the extra hours and sweat. On the other hand, if someone in the company (possibly your manager, possibly someone else) decides to take you on in a mentor/protege role and look out for your career, then it makes sense for you to put your all into that work.
In school, you can get the sense that hard work is always rewarding and virtuous. In real life, sometimes hard work is just wasted effort. You have to discriminate.
What is very unpleasant is dealing with the aftermath of people who took "working strategically" too far and edged into the unethical: people who wrote garbage code fast, were promoted away from maintenance, and left an albatross for their juniors. That happens a lot in software. It sucks.
I can tell. I would have written what you did at that age. Now I'm older and jaded I don't know if that makes me wiser or stupider.
In school, you can actually ace every course. In fact, it's structured so that if you have a good work ethic, above-average talent, and a little bit of luck, getting a 4.00 GPA is possible. It's not easy (I didn't) but certainly within striking distance.
In the "real world" of work, you can't actually ace everything and please everyone while developing your career at the same time. It's not humanly possible to do everything that you "should" do. If you're trying to do five different things, you're probably doing none of them well. If you're trying to "be the best cog you can be", you won't have any energy left for the side projects that might lead to liberation from your boring corporate job. That might be the right approach; maybe your boring corporate job is one rung below a very interesting job in the same company. (Not all corporate jobs suck.) It might not be. But you have to pick and choose. What are you going to do a great job of, what are you going to get by on "good enough", and what can you cut (perhaps an unfruitful side project) for the time being?
Being "the best cog in the machine" doesn't provide much reward over being a marginally acceptable cog. You might get a 8% raise instead of 5%. Big whoop; not worth the extra hours and sweat. On the other hand, if someone in the company (possibly your manager, possibly someone else) decides to take you on in a mentor/protege role and look out for your career, then it makes sense for you to put your all into that work.
In school, you can get the sense that hard work is always rewarding and virtuous. In real life, sometimes hard work is just wasted effort. You have to discriminate.
What is very unpleasant is dealing with the aftermath of people who took "working strategically" too far and edged into the unethical: people who wrote garbage code fast, were promoted away from maintenance, and left an albatross for their juniors. That happens a lot in software. It sucks.
My perceptions might change in the future, but I think we still agree on these points:
>> But you have to pick and choose.
1. The less time you spend doing things you won't do great at, the more you have to focus on doing great things.
2. If you want to do something great, you have to spend effort. You must try to understand all aspects of it.
What we are disagreeing on is:
1. I am saying you should only do great things.
2. You are saying we have too many things to do, and have not enough time to do all of them great.
>> You might get a 8% raise instead of 5%.
Being pedantic here, but 5% is 0% and 8% is 3%, after inflation.
>> But you have to pick and choose.
1. The less time you spend doing things you won't do great at, the more you have to focus on doing great things.
2. If you want to do something great, you have to spend effort. You must try to understand all aspects of it.
What we are disagreeing on is:
1. I am saying you should only do great things.
2. You are saying we have too many things to do, and have not enough time to do all of them great.
>> You might get a 8% raise instead of 5%.
Being pedantic here, but 5% is 0% and 8% is 3%, after inflation.
1. I am saying you should only do great things.
I disagree. Most of the things you'll be expected to do are not great and to attempt to do great work will actually get you in trouble. You'll get into personality conflicts with people who don't care as much as you do, and your pace of work will be considered slow.
It usually demands 3 times as much time and 10 times as much energy to do a great job of something than a passable job. Sometimes, a passable job is enough and more is wasted effort. People who have to do a great job of everything they are asked to do end up getting asked to do a lot of things, some unrewarding, and eventually burn out because they just can't do everything that people want done.
Example of minimal effort being ideal: your boss says you need to be in at work at 9:00 am, even though there's no hard reason (it's just a demonstration of power). Let's say your commute is under 40 minutes 98% of the time. A passable job would be to leave at 8:20 and be on time almost every day, and average 8:40-8:50. You won't get yelled at for being a few minutes late once every couple of months. The "great job" would be to leave for work at 7:30 and arrive at 7:50-8:10, when no one is in the office, thereby ensuring that (unless something very unusual happens) you'll never be late. Does this extra effort really win you anything? Is it more rewarded to be an hour early than on time? In most cases, no.
You need 3 "buckets" for your projects. A: things where you'll do a great job. B: things you'll do just well enough to satisfy the minimum demands. C: things you won't do. If your A bucket is empty, you'll probably get bored and start itching for a side project, but you do not have the time to put everything in your A bucket and will burn out if you try. Generally, you end up splitting the things you have to do (your paid job) between A and B and your personal side projects between A and C (i.e. either doing a great job, or not doing them).
I disagree. Most of the things you'll be expected to do are not great and to attempt to do great work will actually get you in trouble. You'll get into personality conflicts with people who don't care as much as you do, and your pace of work will be considered slow.
It usually demands 3 times as much time and 10 times as much energy to do a great job of something than a passable job. Sometimes, a passable job is enough and more is wasted effort. People who have to do a great job of everything they are asked to do end up getting asked to do a lot of things, some unrewarding, and eventually burn out because they just can't do everything that people want done.
Example of minimal effort being ideal: your boss says you need to be in at work at 9:00 am, even though there's no hard reason (it's just a demonstration of power). Let's say your commute is under 40 minutes 98% of the time. A passable job would be to leave at 8:20 and be on time almost every day, and average 8:40-8:50. You won't get yelled at for being a few minutes late once every couple of months. The "great job" would be to leave for work at 7:30 and arrive at 7:50-8:10, when no one is in the office, thereby ensuring that (unless something very unusual happens) you'll never be late. Does this extra effort really win you anything? Is it more rewarded to be an hour early than on time? In most cases, no.
You need 3 "buckets" for your projects. A: things where you'll do a great job. B: things you'll do just well enough to satisfy the minimum demands. C: things you won't do. If your A bucket is empty, you'll probably get bored and start itching for a side project, but you do not have the time to put everything in your A bucket and will burn out if you try. Generally, you end up splitting the things you have to do (your paid job) between A and B and your personal side projects between A and C (i.e. either doing a great job, or not doing them).
>> I disagree.
I already said that. :) I was summarising our discussion.
You make good points, but I'll need to experience it myself when I get out of university before I'll be convinced.
You make good points, but I'll need to experience it myself when I get out of university before I'll be convinced.
My father likes to use the quote, "Whether you think you can, or you think you can't - you're right."
This is a Henry Ford quote and seems to apply to this situation. You can either believe you can 'follow your dreams' or believe following dreams is reserved for a select few others.
Jobs didn't say everyone can become a billionaire. He said everyone can follow their dreams. He's right.
>> By his late 20s, he was at the point of never having to work again. He could work for fun.
He had been working for fun from the beginning.
This is a Henry Ford quote and seems to apply to this situation. You can either believe you can 'follow your dreams' or believe following dreams is reserved for a select few others.
Jobs didn't say everyone can become a billionaire. He said everyone can follow their dreams. He's right.
>> By his late 20s, he was at the point of never having to work again. He could work for fun.
He had been working for fun from the beginning.
You can either believe you can 'follow your dreams' or believe following dreams is reserved for a select few others.
It's between those two extremes. If I decided my dream was to be a movie star, I'd be out of luck.
He had been working for fun from the beginning.
He did something really smart. He started working (for fun, as you said) before he had to. At 20, it would have been socially acceptable for him to go back to college. Since he was working but didn't have to work, he could achieve a lot. This, combined with the luck of being substantial after a few years of working life, enabled him to "work for fun" for probably most of his work life.
It's between those two extremes. If I decided my dream was to be a movie star, I'd be out of luck.
He had been working for fun from the beginning.
He did something really smart. He started working (for fun, as you said) before he had to. At 20, it would have been socially acceptable for him to go back to college. Since he was working but didn't have to work, he could achieve a lot. This, combined with the luck of being substantial after a few years of working life, enabled him to "work for fun" for probably most of his work life.
> If I decided my dream was to be a movie star, I'd be out of luck.
Steve Jobs specifically advised people to do what they love. If your dream were to be a movie star, it would follow that you love to act.
There are myriad opportunities for actors to practice acting. So I don't see how you couldn't follow your dreams, i.e. do what you love.
> He did something really smart. He started working (for fun, as you said) before he had to.
I don't understand how someone's age precludes them from following their dreams.
I'm sensing a defeatist attitude. If you are convinced that it's impossible to follow your own dreams, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If, instead, you believe that you can follow your dreams, you will look for opportunities to spend your time (even 10 minutes a day at first) following that dream.
Perhaps you can respond with the specifics of your personal dream and how it is not possible to follow it so we can steer this discussion in a productive direction.
Steve Jobs specifically advised people to do what they love. If your dream were to be a movie star, it would follow that you love to act.
There are myriad opportunities for actors to practice acting. So I don't see how you couldn't follow your dreams, i.e. do what you love.
> He did something really smart. He started working (for fun, as you said) before he had to.
I don't understand how someone's age precludes them from following their dreams.
I'm sensing a defeatist attitude. If you are convinced that it's impossible to follow your own dreams, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If, instead, you believe that you can follow your dreams, you will look for opportunities to spend your time (even 10 minutes a day at first) following that dream.
Perhaps you can respond with the specifics of your personal dream and how it is not possible to follow it so we can steer this discussion in a productive direction.
I'm not a defeatist. I'm a realist. The "you can be whatever you want to be" bullshit that kids are fed is destructive. It's not true. Not in the least. I'm all for more moderate formulations of that, such as "pay attention to what you want, not what others expect of you" and "value your integrity and creative freedom highly; money and esteem are unimportant in comparison". I can get behind those ideals. I do not think it is responsible to tell young people that when they are adults they will be able to define their role in society and have society say, "OK, sounds good, and here's the money to pay your bills". It don't work that way.
We have a generation of neurotic, emotionally stunted, psychological cripples in this country, and one reason for that is that we've had 40+ years of kids being told they could be whatever they wanted, only to reach bitter disappointment in adulthood upon discovering reality. Which means that normal lives feel like abject failure to them. If they grew up with lower expectations, they might not be so miserable.
Our parents weren't told this shit, because our grandparents grew up in the fucking Great Depression and knew better.
Every time you tell a kid, "You can be whatever you want to be", you're setting him up for despair if he ends up in an average job and social position. You're better off telling him that life is hard and full of compromises and that most of whether he succeeds or not is out of his control, so he should focus on the 1% he can actually control. I am all for inspiring people to do work they love instead of the work that is best-paid or most esteemed, but they need to be prepared for sacrifice.
I don't understand how someone's age precludes them from following their dreams.
Like it or not-- and I'm definitely in the "not" camp because I think it's disgusting-- in the work world people are judged on where they got to at what age. That's why this "follow your dreams" bullshit is so pernicious. It leads to people (after chasing rainbows for several years) working entry-level jobs at 30, which means they are very unlikely to be taken seriously ever-- they're too far behind.
We have a generation of neurotic, emotionally stunted, psychological cripples in this country, and one reason for that is that we've had 40+ years of kids being told they could be whatever they wanted, only to reach bitter disappointment in adulthood upon discovering reality. Which means that normal lives feel like abject failure to them. If they grew up with lower expectations, they might not be so miserable.
Our parents weren't told this shit, because our grandparents grew up in the fucking Great Depression and knew better.
Every time you tell a kid, "You can be whatever you want to be", you're setting him up for despair if he ends up in an average job and social position. You're better off telling him that life is hard and full of compromises and that most of whether he succeeds or not is out of his control, so he should focus on the 1% he can actually control. I am all for inspiring people to do work they love instead of the work that is best-paid or most esteemed, but they need to be prepared for sacrifice.
I don't understand how someone's age precludes them from following their dreams.
Like it or not-- and I'm definitely in the "not" camp because I think it's disgusting-- in the work world people are judged on where they got to at what age. That's why this "follow your dreams" bullshit is so pernicious. It leads to people (after chasing rainbows for several years) working entry-level jobs at 30, which means they are very unlikely to be taken seriously ever-- they're too far behind.
And he was an adopted child, whom wasn't exactly born into a super-privileged family:
"Jobs was adopted by the family of Paul Jobs and Clara Jobs (née Hagopian) who moved to Mountain View, California when he was five years old.[1][2] Paul and Clara later adopted a daughter, Patti. Paul Jobs, a machinist for a company that made lasers, taught his son rudimentary electronics and how to work with his hands.[1] His adoptive mother was an accountant.[18] Asked in a 1995 interview what he wanted to pass on to his children, Jobs replied, "Just to try to be as good a father to them as my father was to me. I think about that every day of my life." When asked about his "adoptive parents," Jobs replied emphatically that Paul and Clara Jobs "were my parents." [18]" -From the Wikipedia article on S. Jobs
"Jobs was adopted by the family of Paul Jobs and Clara Jobs (née Hagopian) who moved to Mountain View, California when he was five years old.[1][2] Paul and Clara later adopted a daughter, Patti. Paul Jobs, a machinist for a company that made lasers, taught his son rudimentary electronics and how to work with his hands.[1] His adoptive mother was an accountant.[18] Asked in a 1995 interview what he wanted to pass on to his children, Jobs replied, "Just to try to be as good a father to them as my father was to me. I think about that every day of my life." When asked about his "adoptive parents," Jobs replied emphatically that Paul and Clara Jobs "were my parents." [18]" -From the Wikipedia article on S. Jobs
With respect, I submit my comments/arguments:
> I don't think his "philosophy of life" is very practical for average people.
I think that the notion of people as "average" is the root of the problem. There are no average people. There are individuals, whom may choose to become average by leading an average life. There are other individuals, whom may choose or be coerced into being less than average. And on the other side of average, you have those who by virtue of their choices and the guidance they receive from their mentors, choose to live a better than average life - and follow all or part of the "philosophy of life" that Jobs espoused.
>My point is that what worked for him doesn't work for most people.
It can work, if people choose to live life based on such a philosophy.
>If you are a person like Steve Jobs in an average position, you're looking at a string of 6- to 12-month jobs and eventual unemployment once your CV looks like Ypres.
There are two issues with this statement: average by whose measure, and whether one chooses to be average.
>otherwise, you'll be mired in mediocrity because that's what most people like and want. But if you're a normal person who has to pay the bills, to throw all of that social stupidity to the wind is putting the cart a bit before the horse.
I despise mediocrity with a passion. I hire people based on the best that they offer, and fire them based on what they don't. And I know plenty of people who think similarly. It is how I've lived my life.
>But if you're a normal person who has to pay the bills, to throw all of that social stupidity to the wind is putting the cart a bit before the horse.
I completely agree that it is "social stupidity" - and that is why I spend hours rooting it out by sharing posts like these :)
> I don't think his "philosophy of life" is very practical for average people.
I think that the notion of people as "average" is the root of the problem. There are no average people. There are individuals, whom may choose to become average by leading an average life. There are other individuals, whom may choose or be coerced into being less than average. And on the other side of average, you have those who by virtue of their choices and the guidance they receive from their mentors, choose to live a better than average life - and follow all or part of the "philosophy of life" that Jobs espoused.
>My point is that what worked for him doesn't work for most people.
It can work, if people choose to live life based on such a philosophy.
>If you are a person like Steve Jobs in an average position, you're looking at a string of 6- to 12-month jobs and eventual unemployment once your CV looks like Ypres.
There are two issues with this statement: average by whose measure, and whether one chooses to be average.
>otherwise, you'll be mired in mediocrity because that's what most people like and want. But if you're a normal person who has to pay the bills, to throw all of that social stupidity to the wind is putting the cart a bit before the horse.
I despise mediocrity with a passion. I hire people based on the best that they offer, and fire them based on what they don't. And I know plenty of people who think similarly. It is how I've lived my life.
>But if you're a normal person who has to pay the bills, to throw all of that social stupidity to the wind is putting the cart a bit before the horse.
I completely agree that it is "social stupidity" - and that is why I spend hours rooting it out by sharing posts like these :)
By "average", I meant "of average means". Whether there are "average people" is a silly argument. When I said "average people", I meant "people of average means".
If "average people" means "people of average talent and ambition", then we're talking about people who neither have the talent nor desire to do what Jobs did, so the discussion's irrelevant.
If "average people" means "people of average talent and ambition", then we're talking about people who neither have the talent nor desire to do what Jobs did, so the discussion's irrelevant.
Doesn't the life of Steve Jobs discredit your argument?
From what I understand of his life story, he came from "average means" and achieved his success through his own creative capabilities.
From what I understand of his life story, he came from "average means" and achieved his success through his own creative capabilities.
From what I understand of his life story, he came from "average means" and achieved his success through his own creative capabilities.
Ok, I agree with what you are saying, but a few things are worth attention.
First, he made a very smart decision. He started working before he had to, which meant that he could start attacking problems that interested him and working in ways that would enable him to grow right away. This may be a "secret" advantage of dropping out of college; you can start working before you have to do so because of social expectations, and therefore you get to do better work. Having to work is one of the biggest obstacles most people face in their working lives, because it means they can't concentrate on the best work.
Second, the 1970s in Silicon Valley was an atypical time when a 20-year-old nobody was taken seriously by highly influential people. That era has come and gone. The only 20-year-olds who can get sit-down meetings with partners at Sequoia in 2011 are those with rich parents. We may have a more open society in the geographical aggregate, but our world is much more closed than Northern California was in the 1970s.
Ok, I agree with what you are saying, but a few things are worth attention.
First, he made a very smart decision. He started working before he had to, which meant that he could start attacking problems that interested him and working in ways that would enable him to grow right away. This may be a "secret" advantage of dropping out of college; you can start working before you have to do so because of social expectations, and therefore you get to do better work. Having to work is one of the biggest obstacles most people face in their working lives, because it means they can't concentrate on the best work.
Second, the 1970s in Silicon Valley was an atypical time when a 20-year-old nobody was taken seriously by highly influential people. That era has come and gone. The only 20-year-olds who can get sit-down meetings with partners at Sequoia in 2011 are those with rich parents. We may have a more open society in the geographical aggregate, but our world is much more closed than Northern California was in the 1970s.