3 ms·
>tl;dr versions - Gruber thinks the title 'Tweaker' has less social value than 'Inventor' so he takes offense at Gladwell's argument which identifies Steve Jobs
by diogenescynic 15y ago
>tl;dr versions - Gruber thinks the title 'Tweaker' has less social value than 'Inventor' so he takes offense at Gladwell's argument which identifies Steve Jobs a 'tweaker'.
The second sentence: Jobs was neither. These men make for a poor comparison to Jobs because Jobs didn’t really “invent” anything
- ChuckMcM 15y agoYes, twice actually. Gruber's rebuttal that Gladwell's comparison is invalid is itself a fallacy. Gruber claims that Steve Jobs wasn't an inventor but his use of the term is different [1] than Gladwell's use. If you read Gladwell's comments (both the excerpted parts and the entire thing) you will see that Gladwell equates Job's 'vision' for the iPod (as an example) which he was very much in control of, as having both 'invented' the iPod (creative force behind it) and 'tweaked' in the sense that it was a refinement of a previous invention (product). [1] It's called an amphiboly. http://blekko.com/ws/?q=define+amphiboly http://blekko.com/ws/?q=define+amphiboly