6 ms·

Jobs was raised by two people middle class-enough to adopt, in the middle of one of the most progressive parts of the United States during one of its most progr

by kick 7y ago

Jobs was raised by two people middle class-enough to adopt, in the middle of one of the most progressive parts of the United States during one of its most progressive eras. He also wasn't harassed by the law for doing illegal things that would get someone a CFAA-equivalent punishment today (he was a huge phreaker, for instance, and made cash off of it before Apple). Beyond that, I might add, he was in 'audience-testing distance' of Hewlett-Packard back when the namesakes weren't only living, but active, and their company was on top of the world. And he managed to get free parts from one of them, a job, and a pretty important deal of networking, solely by sending Bill Hewlitt a personal phone call as a twelve-year-old. Show me a child in that situation who could get personal audience with, say, Zuckerberg, today. Or Gates. Or any of the Netflix guys. Or anyone running Apple. Or, let's lower the bar, any C-level executive at Microsoft. [Correction without changing the original text, as it's relevant downthread: The first sentence of this was later shown to be false. The rest, to the best of my knowledge, is entirely correct, though.] Edison grew up in walking distance of a college and was able to take classes there. Patents were also significantly cheaper to acquire in his time. Further, the job that effectively launched his career he got via nothing but luck (someone almost died by chance, he played a role in them not dying by chance, that someone's father gave him a job). Bruno Mars's success was pretty much entirely because of his family (not to mention, if you don't see how 'growing up in the safest and richest part of a state known for being safe and rich' might play a big role in things, you've got a very contrarian worldview): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Mars#1985%E2%80%932003:_Early_life_and_musical_beginnings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Mars#1985%E2%80%932003:_... Barack Obama's mother was highly-educated and relatively influential (his father as well to both of those, along with his stepfather as to the former), and he went to private schooling as a child. The Beatles are the only ones on your list who don't have something heavily-significant going for them prior to success. I respect you a massive amount, but it's really disappointing to see this line of thought coming from someone as intelligent as you. I'm doing really well, myself, but it's not in line with reality to act like reality's meritocratic. There are significant barriers to success for more people than there aren't, and "blaming your parents" is a particularly strange way of phrasing 'structural barriers to opportunity'. EDIT: added a paragraph

WalterBright 7y ago
So Jobs was lower middle class, and led Apple to be the biggest company in the world. You've made my point beautifully. > made cash off of it Yeah, a few bucks. So much money that he started Apple by selling his Beetle. A sorry state that probably 95% of Americans are above. > Edison grew up in walking distance of a college and was able to take classes there. And you can take MIT classes FOR FREE on youtube! The word "college" does not appear in Edison's biography by Josephson until after he invented the light bulb. From page 42: "The path of self-instruction and self-improvement was, for him, prolonged by many detours; even after years had passed, without money, without friends, it was not easy to enter upon the true vocation he already dreamed of for himself. His "university" was the rough, workaday world; it was nightwork in shabby telegraph or railroad offices during a turbulent era of war and reconstruction; it was made up also of solitude and study in squalid rooming houses. He might have lost his way or gone downhill, like so many others, in that long-drawn-out, often unhappy interlude of his youth. Yet when these "arduous years" (as he called them) were gone and he had come to manhood, something of iron had entered into him. What he had seen and learned, how he had learned it all, at so much effort, marked him with sharply individual traits of character and mind, setting him apart from those whose youth had been passed in sheltered ease, under wise and solicitous mentors." I'm going to need to see a cite for your Edison claim that he was a privileged youth. > it's really disappointing to see this line of thought coming from someone as intelligent as you You'd have never heard of me if I'd believed that getting somewhere was not under my control, and if I'd believed the endless stream of people telling me I had zero chance.
- kick 7y ago
  So Jobs was lower middle class, and led Apple to be the biggest company in the world. Middle class is different from someone in the actual lower-class, which more Americans are than in the middle. Yeah, a few bucks. So much money that he started Apple by selling his Beetle. A sorry state that probably 95% of Americans are above. You're ignoring the 'punishment' aspect of that sentence. The 'cash' comment was meant to highlight that people (brighter people than Jobs, at that) have been driven to suicide for non-commercial unauthorized access to systems, let alone selling ways of exploiting them. You're also entirely ignoring that access to the brightest, richest, and most-influential people in an industry isn't something your average youth can get in the modern age. Along with the location aspect. The word "college" does not appear in Edison's biography by Josephson until after he invented the light bulb. [...] I'm going to need to see a cite for your Edison claim that he was a privileged youth. I double-checked the last biography I've read of him (Conot's, which is exceptional, although you might dislike it), and I misremembered on the count of it being in his childhood that he attended college. However, it was before he invented the lightbulb (citations [1] [2]), and you didn't try to contest that his career's beginning was based on a single lucky event. And you can take MIT classes FOR FREE on youtube! You went to Caltech, and talk about it frequently. Surely you realize the value of being able to have a conversation with professors, peers & (especially) the libraries, resources and networking available in universities? Do you see it as just a strange coincidence that a significant amount of people you shared dorms and classes with went on to be incredibly influential? Surely your view isn't biased in that Caltech was heading a revolution in computing during your years of attendence (mainly at the end of them, where it saw perhaps the single most revolutionary change in how computing was done since it happened), with some of the absolute brightest people in the field? That you and your peers were in spitting-distance of Carver Mead couldn't have played a role in your view (and your/your peers' successes)? You'd have never heard of me if I'd believed that getting somewhere was not under my control, and if I'd believed the endless stream of people telling me I had zero chance. I've heard of a lot of people who've achieved little commercial success, and I've heard of a lot of people who achieved little commercial success while also having some of the most impressive technical achievements across the board. I've also seen the reverse; people who've achieved significant amounts of commercial success while having relatively few people knowing of them. As a counterexample on the extreme edge of things, similar to your examples, what about Terry Davis? He had more determination than just about anyone could claim. He had technical chops as well. He died impoverished and mentally insane. Kildall died rich yet virtually-unknown and heavily-ridiculed. Oh, here's a good one! Iverson died with incredible technical achievements yet little wealth and little influence. Despite what are arguably more impressive achievements than your own, Iverson is probably known by less people than you are, and his goals were never accomplished, despite a lifelong-dedication to them. I'm not sure how you started out, but Iverson started out poor enough to where he never finished high school. All things considered, if you're right, then why isn't free software running the world? Stallman's probably more determined than anyone else in the industry, was arguably incredibly-competent at his peak, and...lost, failing at most of his goals. Chuck Moore tried over and over and over again. Came up with things that could undeniably be called best-in-class, both in the hardware realm and in the software one. Normal guy with no strange habits, intense personality-quirks, or foot-gunning idealism. Born poor in Flint, Michigan. Failed every single time due to little more than luck. I'm not (nor is anyone in this thread, to my knowledge) trying to claim your success was all luck. Surely it's not. However, I do think there's a significant amount of luck involved for all commercial success, and that individual effort isn't the largest factor in whether or not a person finds it. I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions. I imagine I can't change your mind, but I'm confounded as to why that's the case. Thanks for humoring me with a conversation, though; I do appreciate it! [1] http://faculty.cooper.edu/topper/general/edison.html http://faculty.cooper.edu/topper/general/edison.html [2] https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/for-sesquicentennial-cooper-union-puts-artifacts-on-view/?_r=0 https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/for-sesquicent...

by kick 7y ago

WalterBright 7y ago

So Jobs was lower middle class, and led Apple to be the biggest company in the world. You've made my point beautifully. > made cash off of it Yeah, a few bucks. So much money that he started Apple by selling his Beetle. A sorry state that probably 95% of Americans are above. > Edison grew up in walking distance of a college and was able to take classes there. And you can take MIT classes FOR FREE on youtube! The word "college" does not appear in Edison's biography by Josephson until after he invented the light bulb. From page 42: "The path of self-instruction and self-improvement was, for him, prolonged by many detours; even after years had passed, without money, without friends, it was not easy to enter upon the true vocation he already dreamed of for himself. His "university" was the rough, workaday world; it was nightwork in shabby telegraph or railroad offices during a turbulent era of war and reconstruction; it was made up also of solitude and study in squalid rooming houses. He might have lost his way or gone downhill, like so many others, in that long-drawn-out, often unhappy interlude of his youth. Yet when these "arduous years" (as he called them) were gone and he had come to manhood, something of iron had entered into him. What he had seen and learned, how he had learned it all, at so much effort, marked him with sharply individual traits of character and mind, setting him apart from those whose youth had been passed in sheltered ease, under wise and solicitous mentors." I'm going to need to see a cite for your Edison claim that he was a privileged youth. > it's really disappointing to see this line of thought coming from someone as intelligent as you You'd have never heard of me if I'd believed that getting somewhere was not under my control, and if I'd believed the endless stream of people telling me I had zero chance.

kick 7y ago
So Jobs was lower middle class, and led Apple to be the biggest company in the world. Middle class is different from someone in the actual lower-class, which more Americans are than in the middle. Yeah, a few bucks. So much money that he started Apple by selling his Beetle. A sorry state that probably 95% of Americans are above. You're ignoring the 'punishment' aspect of that sentence. The 'cash' comment was meant to highlight that people (brighter people than Jobs, at that) have been driven to suicide for non-commercial unauthorized access to systems, let alone selling ways of exploiting them. You're also entirely ignoring that access to the brightest, richest, and most-influential people in an industry isn't something your average youth can get in the modern age. Along with the location aspect. The word "college" does not appear in Edison's biography by Josephson until after he invented the light bulb. [...] I'm going to need to see a cite for your Edison claim that he was a privileged youth. I double-checked the last biography I've read of him (Conot's, which is exceptional, although you might dislike it), and I misremembered on the count of it being in his childhood that he attended college. However, it was before he invented the lightbulb (citations [1] [2]), and you didn't try to contest that his career's beginning was based on a single lucky event. And you can take MIT classes FOR FREE on youtube! You went to Caltech, and talk about it frequently. Surely you realize the value of being able to have a conversation with professors, peers & (especially) the libraries, resources and networking available in universities? Do you see it as just a strange coincidence that a significant amount of people you shared dorms and classes with went on to be incredibly influential? Surely your view isn't biased in that Caltech was heading a revolution in computing during your years of attendence (mainly at the end of them, where it saw perhaps the single most revolutionary change in how computing was done since it happened), with some of the absolute brightest people in the field? That you and your peers were in spitting-distance of Carver Mead couldn't have played a role in your view (and your/your peers' successes)? You'd have never heard of me if I'd believed that getting somewhere was not under my control, and if I'd believed the endless stream of people telling me I had zero chance. I've heard of a lot of people who've achieved little commercial success, and I've heard of a lot of people who achieved little commercial success while also having some of the most impressive technical achievements across the board. I've also seen the reverse; people who've achieved significant amounts of commercial success while having relatively few people knowing of them. As a counterexample on the extreme edge of things, similar to your examples, what about Terry Davis? He had more determination than just about anyone could claim. He had technical chops as well. He died impoverished and mentally insane. Kildall died rich yet virtually-unknown and heavily-ridiculed. Oh, here's a good one! Iverson died with incredible technical achievements yet little wealth and little influence. Despite what are arguably more impressive achievements than your own, Iverson is probably known by less people than you are, and his goals were never accomplished, despite a lifelong-dedication to them. I'm not sure how you started out, but Iverson started out poor enough to where he never finished high school. All things considered, if you're right, then why isn't free software running the world? Stallman's probably more determined than anyone else in the industry, was arguably incredibly-competent at his peak, and...lost, failing at most of his goals. Chuck Moore tried over and over and over again. Came up with things that could undeniably be called best-in-class, both in the hardware realm and in the software one. Normal guy with no strange habits, intense personality-quirks, or foot-gunning idealism. Born poor in Flint, Michigan. Failed every single time due to little more than luck. I'm not (nor is anyone in this thread, to my knowledge) trying to claim your success was all luck. Surely it's not. However, I do think there's a significant amount of luck involved for all commercial success, and that individual effort isn't the largest factor in whether or not a person finds it. I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions. I imagine I can't change your mind, but I'm confounded as to why that's the case. Thanks for humoring me with a conversation, though; I do appreciate it! [1] http://faculty.cooper.edu/topper/general/edison.html http://faculty.cooper.edu/topper/general/edison.html [2] https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/for-sesquicentennial-cooper-union-puts-artifacts-on-view/?_r=0 https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/for-sesquicent...