Hunger vs Smart ... What matters in the long run ?

Was Steve Jobs Smart? Scientists on the Keys to Success

by LEE DYE, abcnews.go.com
November 30th -0001

You don't have to be the brightest kid in the class to become the best scholar. Researchers are finding new clues about what it takes to succeed in school, and probably throughout life.

For centuries thinkers have argued about what intelligence is, and how much it takes to make a genius, whatever that means, and how important intelligence is in guaranteeing success. Today, most would agree that intelligence is the cornerstone of academic success.

But there's more to success than that, and there's plenty of examples, including Steve Jobs, the legendary innovator who changed the world.

No one would suggest that Jobs wasn't very, very smart. But he probably didn't have to walk far across the Apple campus to find a bunch of employees who were just as smart as he was, and maybe much smarter.

Biographer Walter Isaacson argued in the New York Times that Jobs was not overly smart in a traditional sense, in that he did not try to solve problems by rigorous analytical pursuit, common marks of intelligence, but relied more on "imaginative leaps" that "were instinctive, unexpected, and at times magical."

Jobs made his mark in the business world, not academia, and his success was due to many things, including personal charisma, and he was the kind of salesman who could peddle ice cream to Eskimos in the middle of the winter.

Bright, yes, but much more than that.

But what about us commoners, who shuffle through life without the gifts that enabled a man like Jobs to do so much? What does it take for us to succeed?

Although Jobs dropped out of college to launch his career, nearly all of us need a first rate education to compete in what has become a highly competitive world. And even in the realm of academics it takes more than intelligence to succeed, although only a fool would argue that intelligence is unimportant. It establishes the basic foundation.

Beyond that, however, educators agree on a second component – effort. No matter how bright you are, you've got to work.

And now, researchers have added a third component. You need intellectual curiosity, or as they put it, a "hungry mind."

In a huge study, scientists in England and Switzerland gathered data from 200 studies involving about 50,000 students to see what it took for them to excel in school. They published their findings in the current issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science.

Curiosity turned out to be a major player.

"Curiosity is basically a hunger for exploration," coauthor Sophie von Stumm of the University of Edinburgh said in releasing the study.

In brief, the study concludes that effort and curiosity together were as important as intelligence in achieving academic success.

"Our results highlight that 'a hungry mind' is a core determinant of individual differences in academic achievement," the study concludes. Curiosity, which they call the "third pillar of academic performance," has been largely overlooked by educators, according to the study

And that, they argue, is a huge failure in schools today.

"Schools and universities must early on encourage intellectual hunger and not exclusively reward the acquiescent application of intelligence and effort," the study says, adding this:

Academic success is likely to be achieved by "not only the diligent class winner who writes an excellent term paper but also the one who asks annoyingly challenging questions during the seminar, a habit that is, unfortunately, not appreciated by all teachers."

In other words, the kid who has all the answers deserves no more encouragement than the one who asks curious questions, clear evidence of a "hungry mind."

The study doesn't attempt to explain how to create that hunger. Encouraging those annoying questions may help, but it probably sends us back to that old debate over nature vs. nurture. Some kids are probably born with it, others learn it in a home that encourages curiosity.

Psychologist Dean Keith Simonton of the University of California, Davis, who has spent decades studying what it takes to be a genius, argues in a new book that it takes more than good genes. It also takes good surroundings.

Other factors also contribute, like good health, financial support, and a little luck.

Any genius needs that. Theirs is not an easy road to follow.

Stanford University researchers, for example, found a link between genius and mental illness, including manic depression. Most highly creative achievers, they concluded, are a little disturbed, which in turn gives them a broad emotional range that possibly contributes to their creative efforts.

And, by the way, over the years I've interviewed many brilliant scientists who easily rank as geniuses. They aren't all nuts.

The only person to receive two Nobel prizes in physics, John Bardeen of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was described in a biography by historian Lillian Hoddeson as "a humble, calm, soft-spoken Midwestener who had plenty of friends and who liked to play golf and have picnics with his family."

He was also very bright, worked very hard, and had a "hungry mind."

That leaves us with this question. How many Bardeens are there out there who will never get that spark that ignites their intellectual curiosity?

Original Page: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/steve-jobs-smart-scientists-hungry-mind-important-intelligence/t/story?id=14861907

Shared from Read It Later

Regards,
Walid.

Kierkegaard Eulogy of Abraham: The Father of Faith


How did Abraham become the father of faith? 

Kierkegaard says, "No one who was great in the world will be forgotten, but everyone was great in his own way, and everyone in proportion to the greatness of that which he loved. He who loved himself became great by virtue of himself, and he who loved other men became great by his devotedness, but he who loved God became greatest of all. Everyone shall be remembered, but everyone became great in proportion to his expectancy. "One became great by expecting the possible, another by expecting the eternal; but he who expected the impossible became greatest of all. Everyone shall be remembered, but everyone was great wholly in proportion to the magnitude of that with which he struggled. For he who struggled with the world became great by conquering the world, and he who struggled with himself became great by conquering himself, but he who struggled with God became greatest of all."

The task God gave to Abraham was so horrifying that he could tell no one about it because no one would understand him. Ethics forbade it as well as aesthetics. Abraham became the father of faith because he was willing to do what God asked of him. "He didn't trouble anyone with his suffering."Abraham was wrong as far as ethics is concerned but right as far the Absolute is concerned. Kierkegaard says, "wishing to be in the wrong is an expression of an infinite relationship, and wanting to be in the right, or finding it painful to be in the wrong, is an expression of a finite relationship! Hence, it is upbuilding always to be in the wrong-because only the infinite builds up; the finite does not!"

Faith is the highest passion in a person. There perhaps are many in every generation who do not come to faith, but no one goes further. Whether there are also many in our day who do not find it, I do not decide. I dare to refer only to myself, without concealing that he has a long way to go, without therefore wishing to deceive himself of what is great by making a trifle of it, a childhood disease one may wish to get over as soon as possible. But life has tasks enough also for the person who does not come to faith, and if he loves these honestly, his life will not be wasted, even if it is never comparable to the lives of those who perceived and grasped the highest. But the person who has come to faith (whether he is extraordinarily gifted or plain and simple does not matter) does not come to a standstill in faith. Indeed, he would be indignant if anyone said to him, just as the lover resents it if someone said that he came to a standstill in love; for, he would answer, I am by no means standing still. I have my whole life in it. Yet he does not go further, does not go on to something else, for when he finds this, then he has another explanation. 

Jobs was a manufacturer, and salesman, of love

Jobs was a manufacturer, and salesman, of love

By Jonathan Weber
The views expressed are his own.

One day in 1991, when I was working as the Silicon Valley correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, I picked up the phone at my girlfriend’s apartment and was greeted by a soft, friendly voice: “Hey Jonathan, it’s Steve. Steve Jobs.” He wanted something from me — I don’t remember what — and he couldn’t have been nicer.

The next time I saw him, a few weeks later, he no longer needed something, and he couldn’t have been more unpleasant. I found his arrogance, and especially his skills as a master manipulator, to be very off-putting, and it took me a while to realize that to pay attention to these aspects of his personality was to completely miss the point about his brilliance.

Technology, for most people, is often experienced as a cold and distant thing, inhuman in every sense. Jobs, uniquely, brought heat and emotion to the technology world; he proved to be the one and only person who could create technology products that people love. His persona, in all its complexities, was entirely in the service of that. No one spontaneously lays wreaths and burns candles at the death of a businessman, except when it’s the exceedingly rare one that has actually touched their hearts.

Love is definitely the right word. Jobs’ product announcements were always been akin to revival meetings, with his disciples cheering every gesture, every word. If you stop someone on the street — me, even — and ask them how they like their iPhone, they’re likely to gush “I love it.” The iPad, a $500 item no one desperately needs, sold more than 9 million units in the second quarter; in the consumer products business, that’s love.

The downside of love is that its emotional power can be dangerous. Jobs is famous for his “reality distortion field,” the super-salesman’s ability to convince you of something that, when you take a step back, simply isn’t true.

Love can have that effect too, if you think about it. And in a business environment, that can be a strange thing.

Jobs actually learned that lesson early on, when, shortly before being pushed out of the company he founded, he raised a pirate flag over the Macintosh division at Apple to signal his contempt for the corporate bosses. He and his followers loved the Macintosh, and what it could be (the first personal computer for the rest of us) — and that passion landed them on the street.

Jobs was ultimately able to harness those emotions to create an extraordinarily innovative and effective organization, even as he persuaded swooning customers to buy lots of his products. But it does point to the immense challenges facing a post-Jobs Apple. “Apple is a cult, not a company,” one frustrated former CEO told me many years ago. “It’s always been that way.”

Yet Jobs’ most impressive achievement was to spread the love – beyond the company insiders and committed cult followers who would stick with Apple products no matter what. The biggest test of his legacy will be whether his successors can instill the same passion, both inside and outside the company. Meanwhile, as we mourn his death, we can only say, we love you Steve, for everything you’ve given us.

This essay is adapted from one that appeared in the Bay Citizen when Jobs resigned his CEO position in August.

PHOTO: A tribute message to the late Steve Jobs written in lipstick is seen on the window of the Apple Store in Santa Monica, California October 5, 2011. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

The beginning of Apple tablet (no KBD and no stylus)

Oddly enough, Microsoft -- or at least one zealous Microsoft engineer -- spurred Jobs to begin investigating the creation of a tablet device. Jobs tells Isaacson about a Microsoft employee he met at a dinner party who "badgered me about how Microsoft was going to completely change the world with this tablet PC software and eliminate all notebook computers, and Apple ought to license his Microsoft software. But he was doing the device all wrong. It had a stylus. As soon as you have a stylus, you're dead. This dinner was like the tenth time he talked to me about it, and I was so sick of it that I came home and, 'F-- this, let's show him what a tablet can really be.'”

The next day, Jobs said, he told his team: "I want to make a tablet, and it can't have a keyboard or a stylus."

BG email on SJ launch of iTunes store in 2003

For the sake of history, BG could never do it ....

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Gates 
Sent: Wed 4/30/2003 10:46 PM 
To: Amir Majidimehr; Dave Fester 
Cc: Will Poole; Christopher Payne; Yusuf Mehdi; David Cole; Hank Vigil 
Subject: Apple's Jobs again.., and time to have a great Windows download service...

Steve Jobs ability to focus in on a few things that count, get people who get user interface right and market things as revolutionary are amazing things.

This time somehow he has applied his talents in getting a better Licensing deal than anyone else has gotten for music.

This is very strange to me. The music companies own operations offer a service that is truly unfriendly to the user and has been reviewed that way consistently.

Somehow they decide to give Apple the ability to do something pretty good.

I remember discussing EMusic and us saying that model was better than subscription because you would know what you are getting.

With the subscription who can promise you that the cool new stuff you want (or old stuff) will be there?

I am not saying this strangeness means we messed up - at least if we did so did Real and Pressplay and Musicnet and basically everyone else.

Now that Jobs has done it we need to move fast to get something where the UI and Rights are as good.

I am not sure whether we should do this through one of these JVs or not. I am not sure what the problems are.

However I think we need some plan to prove that even though Jobs has us a bit flat footed again we move quick and both match and do stuff better.

I'm sure people have a lot of thoughts on this. If the plan is clear no meeting is needed. I want to make sure we are coordinated between Windows DMD, MSN and other groups.