Hacker News Reader

Comment by delusional | Hacker News Reader

There's a pretty significant difference between the statements: "You shouldn't say Woz is naive, because what Woz is ought to not be seen as naive" and "You shouldn't say Woz is naive, because most other people wouldn't understand him as naive" and it's unclear to me which of those to statements you mean.

I too have been lucky enough to hear him speak, and he very much does have this naivete of youth in the way he speaks. He has this very simple and straight forward way to view his contribution, along with a very simple motivation of "it makes me happy" that does feel naive.

I don't think he's nearly as naive as he comes off, but I think he wants to be seen as naive, because his personal philosophy is one that places naivete in high regard. He wants to follow happiness, and happiness can oftentimes be a little naive.

View on HN

> along with a very simple motivation of "it makes me happy" that does feel naive.

Why does that feel naive to you, though? To me, that seems like an issue with your definition of naivety.

> Why does that feel naive to you, though?

The 3 ladders. People on the sociopaths (Elites) ladder think of everyone else – the clueless (educated gentry) and economic losers (labour) – as naive.

The clueless ladder comes off as most naive. Labour knows they're losing and focuses on their own thing. Sociopaths know they're winning and focus on power accumulation. The clueless don't notice any of this and focus on bettering the world or whatever.

https://alexdanco.com/2021/01/22/the-michael-scott-theory-of...

I debated with myself on whether to use "naive" but it seems the most appropriate description. I barely know Woz outside of a 3-hour lecture but it appears that Jobs took advantage of his naivete, lying to him on multiple occasions. It worked out (financially) for Woz and he seems to have a great attitude about it, one of the reasons I admire him. He seems to successfully walk the line of not caring if people take advantage of him while not getting wrecked. I think it fair to consider that a facet of being naive.

I think “grounded” might be a better term vs being naive in this context. People can suck, sometimes a person who sucks is going to take advantage of you, and it’s a choice to handle it in a mindful, positive way. Monk vibes.

It’s not being unaware (naive) but rather a lack of cynicism. I think that’s an important distinction to make. It takes an extra dose of intelligence to avoid cynicism when you are at that level. Cynicism isn’t wisdom, and its absence isn’t naïveté.

I think "innocent" and "guileless" also bracket the sense you're going for, but they don't quite fit either.

Like, he doesn't see the malice in other people, but its not because he's innocent/naive of such intents, nor does he lack the skills to look for it (guileless), but because (as you say) he doesn't care if people take advantage of him, up to a limit.

Properly calibrated, that's really admirable.

He's a lot better off than Jobs now!

I think sometimes people are seen as vulnerable, when they are sincere, or earnest, or open or wear their heart on their sleeve.

But being vulnerable is sort of an important part of being authentic.

And authentic people might have more opportunities to connect with others, especially with the limited time we have on this planet.

"naive" puts this on Wozniak, rather than on Jobs where it belongs. The OP quote expresses a very aware ethic, not naive at all.

I've long highly valued this kind of naivety, so if it's not naivety, it's a shame.

> but I think he wants to be seen as naive

Where does this need come from, to be skeptical or suspicious? Of someone so clearly above board?

Wozniak doesn't need to prove himself to anyone. Maybe he feels comfortable enough in his shoes to be very open about himself, and so motivate people to be true to themselves. At least that's my interpretation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com