Hacker News Reader

Comment by mynameishere | Hacker News Reader

Quit downmodding this guy. Jesus, I hate the downmod arrow. Here's some elucidation:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north670.html

Read it. Time is the great equalizer. Warren Buffett is worth ten thousand times more than you are, assuming you are worth $5 million. But he is 78 years old. Not many people would want to trade places with him, one for one.

Steve Jobs is a better man than I'll ever be, but I'd rather be me than him, Is that strange? No! Because time treats humans like call options--decay is priced in, and hits zero at the set date. Steve Jobs is very, very close to zero, no matter his accomplishments.

View on HN

Steve Jobs is a better man than I'll ever be,

Why? Because he is famous? Because he is rich? Because he, debatably, has 'made the world a better place'? Screw all those default judgements based on cultural indoctrination. Why is it Good to be famous, rich, innovative, an effective leader, ...? As far as I'm concerned, Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett are no better than you or me when I consider what I think is important in life. Stop pressing culturally correct expectations and judgements on others. Develop your own code of ethics.

I've developed my own code of ethics, which says... that Steve Jobs is a better man than most of us will ever be. He pursued the things he was curious in, made sophisticated pieces of technology readily available for consumers, was enough of an asshole not to have to conform much of his work to standards he couldn't bear to conform to, developed enough business acumen to deal with lots of people he probably didn't want to deal with, funded the most brilliant animator of this generation out of his own pocket, created not one but two companies with a greater reputation for excellence than any company that's existed before, and he did it all with a flair for the dramatic. In the meantime he got married and had kids and survived cancer and talked a lot to kids about loving life and survival.

When I use a computer or listen to an iPod, when I prepare to upload my music to iTunes practically hassle-free, when I look at the Mac-using companies that have developed beautiful products, I'm aware that Steve Jobs stands as a symbol for all of the things I love about this community. A lot of us have that feeling. It's not celebrity worship like gets slurred around a lot. It's more that Jobs was the first pro-aesthetic guy in computers, and he's remained an inspiration and a hero to those of us that like beautiful product, and revolutionary product, and annual dramatic revelations on-stage.

That's funny, because I always had the impression that on a personal scale he was an asshole to his friends and strangers.

But yeah, I like my iPhone.

From everything I've heard of him that's right. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I rarely judge people on their personality. I know nice guys that are absolute shits, just as I know one or two nice guys that are incredible people. Similarly, most assholes are just assholes, but some are very brilliant people with short fuses. I've found that of the people I associate with, the least consistent variable is personality, and I find that as I grow older I lose ties more and more with the people I only liked because of how they acted. Those cliques dissolve to make way for groups of people united by interest and motivation, where personality's got less to do with it.

(I also find, incidentally, that the more ambitious your goals the more likely you are to be an asshole. Jobs is certainly the archetype again. But on the other hand you've got great people like Jeff Bezos, so I don't agree with the folk that think assholery leads automatically to greatness.)

so personality doesn't correlate with competence, but does that mean we should discount it?

Unfortunately, lots of individualist philosophies are used by people to justify their own asshole behavior. Note that this doesn't necessarily diminish the validity of the philosophy itself.

How often is it necessary to bruise the feelings of others to be true to yourself? Just about never, in my experience. There are lots of occasions in The Fountainhead where others feelings are bruised, but this is their jealousy causing self-inflicted distress. You can often be true to yourself by discreetly keeping your own counsel, so long as you are not dissuaded from your own true desires.

If you are the boss of others, you should be able to do this honestly and without cruelty, even if you are a hard taskmaster and blunt in your opinions.

Citing The Fountainhead - not exactly the best way to make an argument. I'm a supporter of Rand and her ideals but her writing regarding human relationships is detached from reality.

I'm not making an argument. I'm making hazy observations based on feelings.

Everyone knows people who are their own people, but who do not impose on others. If asked, they will tell you. If pressed, they will stand up for themselves. But they sometimes show restraint where others might take the opportunity to "count coup."

It's also possible to be your own person and stand up for yourself while being abrasive, suffering no fools, and keeping everyone around you on edge. There's also a whole spectrum in between.

If my observations about certain subscribers to individualist philosophy bothers you, I suggest that might be salient data. You have far better access to additional data than I for evaluating that.

I find Objectivism, from what I know of it, to be remarkably self-consistent. It is an admirable product of its time. Some of what Ayn Rand said needs to be modified in the face of new evidence from evolutionary biology and neuroscience. (Humans clearly do have instincts.) A sign of a healthy philosophy is its ability to incorporate such new data.

Objectivism is terrific in a few ways. I still reread The Fountainhead once or twice a year. But the more you learn of it the shallower it becomes. The Fountainhead works because it's an incredibly contained world; Roark is essentially a loner. But Rand makes that out to be some ideal in and of itself. In truth, lots of brilliant people are radically social, and have had convoluted lives entirely unlike the straight path Roark takes. If you ignore that, and ignore the biological imperatives that explain it, then you're creating a fantastic type of human that doesn't really exist, and in some ways you belittle the people that Rand drew inspiration from to create Roark.

I just realized -- I never really criticize Objectivism in this thread. (That the founder's world view is eventually superseded by advancing knowledge is just a fact of life, not a criticism.)

What I do criticize is the way some people apply "Objectivism." This is certainly not unique. I also find the attitudes of many Christians to be distinctly not Christ-like.

What I do criticize is the way some people apply "Objectivism." This is certainly not unique. I also find the attitudes of many Christians to be distinctly not Christ-like.

That's actually a really apt comparison! I think I'll borrow that in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com