Steve Jobs on PipeMakersForum

[The Smoking Yeti]

Very interesting discussion.

Speak the truth in love, if you're giving critique for the sole purpose of breaking somebody down, then you should probably shut up. If I tell Nate I think his stems are fucking ugly, I need to make sure I'm telling him so constructively, not destructively. It's the difference between somebody pointing and laughing, and somebody telling you you've got shit on the corner of your lip and you should wipe it off.

It's also important to understand somebody's intentions. In the world of pipes for instance, I could tell a hobbyist all the reasons their work isn't going to cut Ivarsson's muster, but if said hobbyist is just doing this for fun, then my critique is probably only going to discourage them.

[Alden]

flannel-wearing monkey.

Aha ! Told you so.

[wdteipen]

Interesting discussion and great comments so far. One thing I'll add is that talented folks with no people skills make terrible leaders so they better hire folks that can lead to work for them. It's a good thing Jobs did this or else his brilliance would have vanished into the nether. It's a weakness. A character flaw. Just because they are brilliant doesn't excuse brash, anti-social behavior. And they shouldn't be rewarded for that behavior by being dismissive of it either. Only egomaniacal people would think that being kind (some people call it constructive) in your criticism is self centered out of a desire to be liked. If you think the world revolves around you then I can see how Mr. Jobs would come to that conclusion. There's no good excuse for being purposefully unkind if you ask me. That being said, working in healthcare, I see a lot of this type of behavior; especially in physicians. One common denominator seems to be a hyper-inflated ego. You see it with all types of people but especially people with power, fame, and money. You see it in actors, physicians, politicians, and.........pipemakers.

[PremalChheda]

From an article in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/ ... ntPage=all

Jobs’s taste for merciless criticism was notorious; [Jon] Ive recalled that, years ago, after seeing colleagues crushed, he protested. Jobs replied, “Why would you be vague?,” arguing that ambiguity was a form of selfishness: “You don’t care about how they feel! You’re being vain, you want them to like you.” Ive was furious, but came to agree. “It’s really demeaning to think that, in this deep desire to be liked, you’ve compromised giving clear, unambiguous feedback,” he said. He lamented that there were “so many anecdotes” about Jobs’s acerbity: “His intention, and motivation, wasn’t to be hurtful.”


Speak amongst yourselves.

Early in my pipe making learning stage, I received some very honest and brutal criticism/feedback/instruction from a mentor. I knew his intention was to push me and make sure that our time was not being wasted, and I definitely had a fearful respect for him. Sometimes it hurt, but it was right, and it made me like him more.

[RDPowell]

Just to clarify, my comments concerning S. Jobs was not on his criticism but, looking at him as a whole. (and he was one of those)
The man screwed his business partner which was the real brains of the company and broke up with his girl
friend because she got pregnant. A real piece of work there, I don't care how brilliant he was, he's still
a piece of trash when it all boils down IMHO.

[e Markle]

Steve Jobs said my pipes were flawless.

Hope this Helps!™

[ToddJohnson]

Another way to say this (if I read you right Tyler) is that we are arguing whether content and style are or can be two totally separate things, and the answer is obviously "no".

Hemingway's style is part of his content, the emotive content of his work.

T.S. Eliot's style is part of his content, obviously someone like Dylan Thomas or e.e. cummings you might say style IS their content in some cases.

For someone to operate on a level of real and consistent emotional separation actually puts them firmly in a sociopathic tradition, and again, that's probably pretty common with this "My IQ is 172" crowd. Their emotional IQ is often quite low. Watching the new Sherlock Holmes series, Cumberbatch's Sherlock is firmly in this tradition - the lab assistant who likes him puts on lipstick when he shows up and of course he notices, and points it out (wondering about her choice of timing). She surreptitiously removes it, and he announces (truthfully) that she looked better before. Her (doubly) hurt feelings are both confusing and irrelevant to Sherlock.

I'm late to the party on this one because I had no idea what it was about from reading the Subject line. It's an interesting discussion--and one I often have in my Friday morning counseling sessions. I don't believe there is a separation between "intention" and iteration. To use the academic jargon that I'm versed in, one's intention is irrelevant to another's apprehension of a given iteration. In practical terms, that means it doesn't matter if I did not intend to come across as "harsh" to my wife if she takes it that way. Basically, it's on me to make sure I don't come across as harsh, and that's the whole story.

I confess to having a somewhat lower than average emotional IQ, and I'm often confused by people's "hurt feelings." It was also somewhat of a shock to find out (somewhat recently) that other people don't smell colors. Who knew? My point is that sometimes, we may apprehend someone else's words or facial expressions or actions as "meaning" something they may never have intended. Along with Richard Rorty and the other Pragmatists, I would assert that words do not "mean," they are only used. What we call "meaning" is only carried to the text by the reader who employs the text to serve one purpose or another. For instance, if I particularly dislike you, I am more prone to apprehend anything you might say as hostile. If I like you, I am probably less inclined to take what you say as "offensive."

For many years I've never considered how something I say is likely be received--again the counseling--I've only ever considered whether or not it is accurate and defensible. These are the factors that have always mattered most to me and I've always (mistakenly?) assumed this is what matters most to others. We all assume that everyone else inhabits our same reality, but there's really not such a thing as "reality." There're only shared experiences. I'm learning the importance of "delivery," and that what I consider nothing more than a transference of empirical data between two minds, others experience as some sort of emotional exchange that involves our respective feelings. I wasn't able to differentiate a "feeling" from a "thought" two years ago, and I'm still not that well versed.

Anyway, do consider that criticism, no matter how "harsh" it may seem, and no matter how big an asshole you think it's coming from, may be nothing less than another rung on the ladder you're attempting to climb. A teaspoon of sugar might help the medicine go down, but the point is the medicine. The medicine will make you better. The sugar is superfluous.

TJ

[ToddJohnson]

Hope this Helps!™

You can't triple-stamp a double-stamp, #sparklecake! Everybody knows that.

TJ

P.S. Hope this helps©

[The Smoking Yeti]

I'm late to the party on this one because I had no idea what it was about from reading the Subject line. It's an interesting discussion--and one I often have in my Friday morning counseling sessions. I don't believe there is a separation between "intention" and iteration. To use the academic jargon that I'm versed in, one's intention is irrelevant to another's apprehension of a given iteration. In practical terms, that means it doesn't matter if I did not intend to come across as "harsh" to my wife if she takes it that way. Basically, it's on me to make sure I don't come across as harsh, and that's the whole story.
TJ

Good insights here Todd. I think impersonal critique is less possible the closer it comes to relationships. If you are critiquing my pipes, it's possible for me to separate myself from them(temporarily) and listen to what you're saying. This separation would be far more difficult if you were critiquing me.

As my mom is fond of telling me, "perception is reality dick-head!"

Cheers!

Yeti

[LatakiaLover]

To use the academic jargon that I'm versed in, one's intention is irrelevant to another's apprehension of a given iteration. In practical terms, that means it doesn't matter if I did not intend to come across as "harsh" to my wife if she takes it that way. Basically, it's on me to make sure I don't come across as harsh, and that's the whole story.

Accepting that as the whole story means it's OK for her to expect you to be a mind reader, and no apology is possible when you guess wrong.

Much more reasonable is to try your best, and BOTH of you fall back on good intentions when the wrong message is received.

[ToddJohnson]

To use the academic jargon that I'm versed in, one's intention is irrelevant to another's apprehension of a given iteration. In practical terms, that means it doesn't matter if I did not intend to come across as "harsh" to my wife if she takes it that way. Basically, it's on me to make sure I don't come across as harsh, and that's the whole story.

Accepting that as the whole story means it's OK for her to expect you to be a mind reader, and no apology is possible when you guess wrong.

Much more reasonable is to try your best, and BOTH of you fall back on good intentions when the wrong message is received.

Fair enough, but like I tell my three children, we can't control other people's re/actions so it's best to focus on our own. My wife is a beautiful, kind, long-suffering and generous soul, so when she receives the "wrong message" from me, I'm wise enough to assume it was probably my fault and take steps to do better.

TJ

[scotties22]

To use the academic jargon that I'm versed in, one's intention is irrelevant to another's apprehension of a given iteration. In practical terms, that means it doesn't matter if I did not intend to come across as "harsh" to my wife if she takes it that way. Basically, it's on me to make sure I don't come across as harsh, and that's the whole story.

Accepting that as the whole story means it's OK for her to expect you to be a mind reader, and no apology is possible when you guess wrong.

Much more reasonable is to try your best, and BOTH of you fall back on good intentions when the wrong message is received.

Fair enough, but like I tell my three children, we can't control other people's re/actions so it's best to focus on our own. My wife is a beautiful, kind, long-suffering and generous soul, so when she receives the "wrong message" from me, I'm wise enough to assume it was probably my fault and take steps to do better.

TJ

Todd is a very veryt smart man!

[Sasquatch]

Todd isn't married to an insane militaristic dictatorial bitch.



I'm not saying Heath is.


I'm just sayin.

[LatakiaLover]

Todd isn't married to an insane militaristic dictatorial bitch.

Scottie is not militaristic.

[scotties22]

Todd isn't married to an insane militaristic dictatorial bitch.

Scottie is not militaristic.

Sure not. That shit takes way too much work. I'm more of a "by the seat of my pants" type person. It's more adventurous that way

[LatakiaLover]

I think you missed the joke.