4 ms·
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 tha
by deeg 1y ago
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.
- toomuchtodo 1y agoI 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.
- bearl 1y agoIt’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.
- petsfed 1y agoI 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.
- kragen 1y agoHe's a lot better off than Jobs now!
- m463 1y agoI 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.
- jibal 1y ago"naive" puts this on Wozniak, rather than on Jobs where it belongs. The OP quote expresses a very aware ethic, not naive at all.