...says it all
After Britain's Chief Rabbi criticised the consumerism of the late Great High Priest of Apple, a professor of applied ethics at Hofstra University has joined the crew of Jobs-knockers, saying that we shouldn't venerate the Apple CEO because of his well-documented bad behaviour. Blogging on Psychology Today, Arthur Dobrin told …
The guy does, overall, have a point.
Modern western culture demonstrates an inability to distinguish between the individual and the achievements of the individual, so very often we end up with individuals being unquestioningly celebrated as geniuses instead of recognising their achievements as being noteworthy.
It's not just Jobs either - it happened with Michael Jackson and Amy Winehouse and countless others. It's the same way that when talking about Kurt Cobain nobody ever mentions that, tragic though his case was, perhaps taking heroin to help cope with a stomach ulcer was not a smart thing to do.
Bloody simian brains, making it easier to relate to other simians on daft grounds like "S/he was alright, someone you'd get on with if you met 'em down the pub" than on grounds like "A moody but exceptionally talented artist/musician/athlete/goat-herder".
No he fucking well doesn't.
A quote from a bloody Rabbi nobody's heard of is mainstream news now? If I went around claiming to believe in a fairy who lives in the sky, I'd be *sectioned*, not quoted.
Jesus Horatio Fogharty Christ in a kebab, why are we seeing articles about lunatics who clearly have such a frail grip on reality? I stopped believing in my invisible friend when I was *six*. What's his excuse?
And this arse has the balls to lecture *us* about worshiping arseholes? Has he actually *read* the Torah? His "god" is a heartless, unfeeling, complete and utter narcissistic bastard! (Seriously: look at those famous Ten Commandments and note how far down "Don't kill people" comes on the list.)
Thanks, but I'll rely on my own moral compass.
Now for the main feature rant. This rant is rated "Unsuitable for people" by the BBRC.
Jobs' personal life had precisely sod all to do with his being a good CEO. Neither did *anyone* at Apple—least of all Jobs himself—ever try to portray him as some kind of demigod. THAT was entirely the hypocritical media's decision. A media that's now enjoying the process of ripping apart the highly fictional image THEY created.
Yes, Jobs was arrogant. Yes, he had personality issues. So did Edison (who'd send the heavies around to anyone trying to make a movie in New York—hence Hollywood). So did many others.
Silvio Berlusconi, Rupert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, George W. Bush... The list of fuckwads who've achieved success (if not necessarily "greatness") in life is endless. Some of them were even elected. Multiple times. (Yes, Germany, I'm looking at you while attempting to avoid Godwin's Law.)
Remember: a CEO is someone who *runs* a company, instead of merely working for one. It takes some serious self-confidence and chutzpah to run a company like Apple and turn it from a financial basket-case into a commercial success. And you really don't get to do that by being nice.
Yes, there are a tiny, tiny minority who are fanatical about Apple's products, but there are equally fanatical fruitcakes who consider Android, or all things with a "free software" or "open source" tag nailed on to be The One True Way, and they don't shut the f*ck up either. Even Microsoft has its die-hard fans.
You get loony fanatics *everywhere*. Star Trek fans. Star Wars fans who hate Jar-Jar Binks with a passion. Star Wars fans who didn't think he ruined what was a perfectly decent kid's action adventure movie. Doctor Who fans who write fan-fiction involving David Tennant's portrayal, and a female Dalek. (I guarantee you that exists. If it doesn't, it very soon will. This is the internet, after all.)
This shit is *normal*. Obsessives are gonna obsess. You can't stop that. Especially in IT, where Autism Spectrum Disorder is as common as sociopathy is in management circles.
I'm sure he was, but, with all respect, that is irrelevant. He was also a lousy father to his first daughter. Can we define the man based solely on any of these facts? Nope. He was all of these things and we are stupid to ignore the bits we don't like.
Anyway, I suspect that the professor was reacting, as are so many of us, not so much to Steve Jobs the man, but rather to the overwhelming gush of nauseating sycophancy that flooded the internet and more traditional media following his death. It isn't personal. It just needs some balance to de-sanctify the guy. If ever a word was overused to the point of meaninglessness it is the word genius. He wasnt a genius. He was clever and he knew some clever people and he knew how to use them. He was successful in economic terms; maybe not so much in other ways. He knew and did some stupid things too; some of that hippy stuff I have read you being scathing about in others from time to time.
How do I get sucked into these things? Enough! :-)
Being 'politically correct' on this is kind of silly. The term simply refers to one being at a disadvantage in a particular situation. If one wasn't at a disadvantage related to making their way into a business from their parked car, then they wouldn't need a closer parking space.
Really, If you think about it, the term 'disabled' sounds worse, implying the person is broken and nonfunctional, rather than just at a disadvantage.
@"Whether genius requires such narcissism"
Genius most definitely doesn't require narcissism, although narcissists would be more than happy to disagree with this, as they very much want to promote themselves as better than others, but that doesn't make them better, it just makes them narcissistic.
Geniuses are better because they are smarter than others. Narcissists just think they are and want others to think that as well. There is a difference, but not in the mind of a Narcissist.
Tsk, tsk! Personal moral failures in one of our technology leaders? We can't have that, no more than we could tolerate it in our political or religious leaders. Thank goodness that never happens. It would be petty to say that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Steve Jobs was a self-absorbed scumbag, it's true, but a more extreme example of that personality type is available to pastors and rabbi's everywhere, if only they would look at their own holy texts. And compared to the self-absorbed scumbag they'll find therein, Steve is only responsible for the death and suffering of a fraction of humanity.
...to idolize someone just because he made cool products.
Why should we expect him to be good or bad or anything? Why should we care?
Henry Ford made some important products too and was just as fussy about the design (or at least the color). We don't idolize him or berate him for being an b*stard (and I have no idea which of the two he was, nor do I care)...
"Top of the hit list is Steve's much-discussed poor treatment of his first daughter; according to the recent Walter Isaacson biography, he had refused to acknowledge paternity until compelled to do so by a court order."
What do you mean "according to the recent Walter Isaacson biography"? It's according to just every blinking article or book that touches upon the subject of Jobs's relationship to his first born... Isaacson wasn't exactly having to rummage around in the closet to produce that skeleton.
Sure, now that the man has died some nay-sayers gather up and finally see the opportunity to give the world a piece of their mind on how things /really/ were. According to them of course.
I don't say its bad to criticize the stuff Mr. Jobs has done or question his motives on some of his decisions. But to start personal attacks like these is pretty cheap in my book, especially since he can no longer talk back.
Where were these criticasters when Mr. Jobs was still alive? Probably too afraid to openly criticize him because oh my.. Maybe Mr. Jobs would have banned them from all known Apple stores on the planet.
Give it a rest already and move on to things which currently matter.
Says a Windows user who's happily using non-Apple hardware or software and also has some very critical and biased opinions on the Apple company itself.
I also tend to find the new anti-Jobs sentiment to be a little mean spirited.
My perception is it's a reaction to financial analysts wringing their hands and asking of the stars, "What, oh what will become of Apple without Steve Jobs?"
Perhaps Jobs was a visionary. Perhaps he was a dick. Perhaps both.
But the success of Apple was created by teams of engineers all working together and lending their expertise to the finished products. Not just one guy.
The financial analysts all need to take a Valium and chillax.
Arthur Dobrin About 82,700 results
Steve Jobs About 288,000,000 results
Arthur did for me, well naff all.
Steve did for me, well lots, released me from the shackles of CRAPOS, made me a lot less grumpy.
Will Arthur be remembered in History, nope, don't think so, will Steve, yep
Very shortly after the death of Steve Jobs, those nice people in the U.S. who picket the funerals of American soldiers who died in Afghanistan and Iraq told us that he was burning in Hell, since he did not give God the glory for his achievements, and he encouraged sin.
Now more respectable people are jumping on the bandwagon.
Even if their points are valid, to most of us, Steve Jobs is important for what he has done for us, and his faults are between him and those affected by them. That may be selfish of us, of course.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019