Woz is such a generous, stand-up soul that he should be famous for that alone, even if he were just a mediocre engineer. The fact that he was also one of the greatest hackers in his time is just a bizarre, but welcome anomaly of tech history.
You are recognized by your own skills and good work, and you don‘t have to criticize others for not doing good work. Just worry about your own skills.
Wozniak is a very technically brilliant guy, and I have the utmost level of respect for him. But the sentence I quoted above just shows that he's also a stereotypical "nerd" in a lot of ways [1], in the sense that he has a very poor understanding of how humans operate, both at the individual level and the organizational level.
Specifically, just worrying about your own skills is not enough most of the time, especially if you work in any kind of team setting where success requires every team member to pull their own weight. If someone is fucking up constantly and ruining your team's objectives and deliverables, you need to let them know. You can be nice about it if you want, but if you actually care about your work then you absolutely cannot "just worry about your own skills."
Heck, this isn't true for just companies. I think every one of us has had group assignments in college where one person just didn't do the work or did it incorrectly. Someone like Woz might have let it go, because people who are taught by their parents to be "nice" tend to avoid confrontation due to the unpleasant feelings it brings. But the right thing to do - both morally and otherwise - is to criticize the person for slacking off and file a formal complaint if they don't start performing.
In fact, now that I think about it, that's probably why he didn't call out Jobs on it when he found out that Jobs screwed him out of $5,000 back in the day. He just didn't have the confidence to fight wrongdoings, even when he was directly hurt by them (granted, Jobs was Woz's polar opposite in the sense that he had an extremely strong personality, one that would have crushed Woz's). Also remember that when he built the first Apple computer, he wanted to give it away for free because he was just a nice guy. It was Jobs who was a lot more grounded in reality and convinced Woz that they needed to sell it for money.
[1]I put it in quotes because I'm not using it as a pejorative.
I'm sure Woz has a fine understanding of "how humans operate", perhaps even better than you or I. He has worked with some of the most important individuals and companies in this industry.
Woz is not dumb. His point was that he chose to adopt this mindset on purpose. He'd rather be the "average person joking all the time than a powerful businessman stressing over work everyday".
By not calling out Jobs for screwing him out of $5,000, you can easily say Woz was just avoiding confrontation. But I really think his whole mindset transcends that. It just wasn't important to him. And that's how Woz lived his whole life, simply focusing on the things that really mattered to him.
I have always been so impressed with how true to himself Woz was.
His point was that he chose to adopt this mindset on purpose.
Exactly. Wozniak and Jobs weren't just opposites. Wozniak is the anti-Jobs.
And it makes me wonder if the deliberate personal philosophy Wozniak assumed ever got under Jobs' skin. Obviously it would have been unintentional but could have bothered Jobs more than we can imagine.
If you're not a manager, it's not your job to criticize others. You can privately let the manager know why you think there was a failure, but that's just your opinion, the manager may see it differently.
If you are a manager, while it is your job to occasionally criticize performance, it is never your job to criticize people. Further, if someone is "fucking up constantly," it's your fault. Do they understand the requirements? Do they have the training to handle those requirements? Is that the right role for them? Your job as manager is to make sure that everyone feels comfortable in their role and is able to further grow in that role or into other roles. If they're not doing that, it's your mistake.
In all cases, Wozniak is right. The only person you can criticize is yourself.
> If you're not a manager, it's not your job to criticize others.
Nonsense. If you work in a particular role with others at a company, you are able to measure yourself against them and others - not just output, but in lots of different ways. If someone is doing a particularly sloppy job or "fucking up constantly" it's your responsibility as a professional and as a decent human being to raise them up. You can do this by taking them aside and critiquing their work.
You missed david's point. You're not supposed to criticize the person (ex. "You are sloppy!"). You're supposed to criticize the person's work (ex. "Your work is sloppy!").
In my experience, criticizing the person just drags down their morale and usually doesn't motivate them, whereas criticizing their work sometimes motivates them to improve their work (it can also sometimes drag down morale as well, depending on how you go about it).
Depending on the organization, this is either acceptable or not, encouraged or not. And usually in every organization, if you're going to do the talking, you need to be one that everyone respects. Otherwise (again, depending on the organization), it can be a moment when everyone turns against you.
In especially toxic cultures, you need to be careful. It's unfortunate but true if you ever find yourself in one. Get out, get out fast if you are.
I think you are correct. Let me add two points: 1) Even though presenting constructive criticism may be uncomfortable for both parties, getting "blindsided" by the boss can really wreck a working relationship. 2) The reception one receives depends upon the prior relationship - a good one raises the probability of getting a "listening ear."
Wow, that sounds like a terrible work environment. I much prefer a self-regulating team. It is much less stressful in my opinion to be called out on problems quickly, and by your peers, than to have to have a "talk" with your manager, perhaps weeks or months after there was a problem that you could easily have fixed. I've seen more dysfunctional teams from this type of attitude than I've seen functional ones. If a team member is having a problem, they often know it, but don't know why they are rubbing everyone wrong and then they get worse from stress and trying to fix the wrong things. By the time the manager steps in, it is often too late, and a problem that should have been nipped in the bud has spiralled out of control.
I think saying 'a terrible work environment' is a bit of a stretch. The important part of criticism is that it's taken constructively - often it's best done between peers, but sometimes it's best done with (good) managers.
I think a key issue is that coworkers can be awesome workers, but HORRIBLE at critique. It's a skill that people aren't always good at. I know I could be better. A good manager will be great at this, and it's often best to let the best person at this do the talking. Managers can also be great as go betweens, and councillors for both sides, so that hatchets don't get buried directly into coworker skulls.
From my experience most "nerds" are actually way too quick to criticize others. They lack confidence in their social skills so they form an identity around their supposed technical abilities. Then they use that identity to justify bullying, but instead of beating up someone with a diminutive stature they'll post a tweet about how someone is a moron for not using the correct design pattern on some code they posted on github.
This is not confidence -- this is insecurity and arrogance.
A lot of the time it is also just lack of understanding of how others will respond.
A lot of "nerd bullying" is unintended and seem to happen through brutally harsh technical criticism that we often don't realize can affect others really badly.
I used to work with a now well known blogger who is reasonably technical, but not a developer, and I used to fall prey to this with him.
In one meeting, we were chatting while waiting for someone to bring some documents, and he told me "when I first met you, I thought you were a total jerk, because it seemed like in every meeting when I opened my mouth, you'd shoot me down". After a while he realised it wasn't personal, but he still didn't quite understand why I was seemingly picking on him.
And it was true. I did shoot him down a lot. But I was flabbergasted. To me, my criticism was essential technical discussion. What's more, as I told him, the only reason I often criticised his ideas was because they were often good. Good ideas deserve thorough attention. Good ideas deserve criticism, because it is by fixing the rough edges we turn a good idea into something great. I had, and have, a huge amount of respect for his ideas.
The reason I kept my mouth shut when a lot of the rest of the management team came up with suggestions was because I often didn't believe they were interesting enough to be worth it, and I had a good idea for when any of those ideas might get traction enough to be worth shooting down, but mostly the bad ideas just got me to pull back and think about something else.
Sometimes we do bring out the heavy guns for really bad ideas too, but even then there is often a tacit admission of respect on some level, though influence rather than technical proficiency: Only the really insecure or clueless wastes lots of time criticising someone with no influence. We criticise bad ideas incredibly harshly when they come from people who have the influence to push their ideas through regardless.
But that is rarely aimed at someone who would be all that phased. And at least in my environment, the less technical members of the team would often easily recognise and kill those bad ideas without any need for me to pick them apart. More often for me at least, it was people I respected with ideas I respected that got the tough responses, because they got my attention.
Back then, I didn't understand that this kind of harsh language was not taken as impersonal technical discussion aimed at helping to improve their ideas by "normal" people, but as intense personal criticism.
I hope I've improved in that respect, but I still far too often cringe at when I see my "old self" reflected in overly harsh responses that still seem to be well intended.
There's a difference between criticizing someone and helping them. The former can lead to the latter, but they don't always (or even often!) go hand-in-hand.
It worked out well for him. He's a widely loved billionaire who got to invent a long list of things that changed the world. Woz was true to himself while good to others and I love that.
If that makes him a "nerd", then I wish HN had more nerds!
> It worked out well for him. He's a widely loved billionaire who got to invent a long list of things that changed the world.
This was largely right-place, right-time. I suspect he would have been widely-loved and an inventor regardless of whether he became a billionaire, though ;)
Most people are assholes. I don't know why anyone would ever advocate being like most people, I simply can't comprehend it.
Steve Wozniak was employed and making a good salary as a programmer when Jobs screwed him over. Wozniak has said that he knew that Jobs was in a tough spot, and needed the money badly. He forgave him, that's what friends do.
If Wozniak had chosen the path you would have, Apple wouldn't exist and Steve Wozniak wouldn't be rich enough to spend the last few decades doing whatever the fuck he wants to do.
As a stereotypical nerd, who is socially retarded yet still manages to be a cynical asshole on a regular basis, I'll leave you with this.
The world needs nice guys like Steve Wozniak far more than it needs more assholes.
If you take it by the numbers (which is a bad way, but still) then Woz definitely came out ahead by avoiding a confrontation over the $5000. I'd say he played it pretty smart if that was his intention, but I think it is obvious that it wasn't, he just isn't that kind of person. It speaks volumes about Jobs though.
You're probably righ on Woz being a bit too soft, but just to play the devil's advocate: maybe he was just thinking of the stereotypical "nerd supremacy" type of criticism, which I think we can agree on is a damaging sort of criticism.
JL posted her interview of Woz on the Founders at Work website. It's one of my favorites in the book (need to buy another copy, gave away my last one) because you really get a sense of the pure hacker/engineering genius/engineering spirit Woz is.
The Woz model - engineering as a fulfillment of curiousity is powerful. It is often hard to make the leap towards understanding what to commercialize...
"You are recognized by your own skills and good work, and you don‘t have to criticize others for not doing good work. Just worry about your own skills."
Reading from inspiring people like Wozniak makes me wonder how to adopt such advice.
I am wondering about that almost every time I review a pull request. How do you deal with bad code, poor comments or over-engineering when you see it? Of course you can be nice, but then code and product quality would end up affected. How do you balance this thing?? The person being reviewed knows it's not personal, but it too often becomes a battle of egos. I would be really interested to find ways to become a better programmer by being nicer without bending over or compromising on professional integrity. Any suggestions?
That seems to be the direction I was looking for. It is subtle, but I see the difference. What I noticed in your example is two things:
1. The statement is framed as a personal viewpoint, rather than absolute truth/fact.
2. You not only state the problem, but also the intent or direction for a fix.
I'll try to see if I can adopt something along those lines. Thanks.
It's important to acknowledge personal differences while trying to see them as separate from the people themselves. It's when the two are confused that problems arise.
If you ignore personal differences, or don't understand that they're opinions (albeit based on experience) you will fail.
"I've just had to track down bugs due to globals defined in this context when they don't need to be. If you use this approach it will save everyone a lot of time in the future."
Not confrontational, it's educational, and you're saying why it's wrong. Just saying "it's wrong" doesn't help if the original author didn't realize it was wrong at the time. If they did realize it was wrong and did it anyways, giving the full description just reminds them why they should go and do it the long way.
I never make rude and inappropriate comments or call people names. I do try to highlight mistakes or what I consider to be a wrong approach. Some of those well-articulated comments still some times get misinterpreted, and egos get involved in the discussion.
Wozniak is talking about not criticizing people, and in that respect, even a nicely put, well articulated comment is a form of criticism.
Some years ago, I had to do several personal development courses. Most of them were absolutely useless (at least to me), but one I found tremendously useful in various job and life settings. It was a course about assertiveness (and, in particular, assertive communication).
Assertive communication is about expressing a contrary position in such a way that you are totally firm, but not aggressive. Your interlocutor must understand that your stance is strong, but that you are a person who listens and is not just trying to impose mindless authority on them.
A basic template for assertive communication is something like:
1. "I understand that [description of your interlocutor's position and why it's understandable that he holds it]",
2. "BUT [description of your position and firm arguments to support it]",
3. "THEREFORE, [conclusion, which will typically match your position but make some concessions to theirs if you can]".
It sounds like something pretty trivial, but believe me, it makes a load of difference. People will be way more likely to accept your arguments if you explicitly show them that you have carefully listened to theirs and respect them. I have had people coming into my office to complain about something, and going out almost thanking me for that very thing!
Of course, this is a personal informal explanation and you'll be able to find much better explanations of this principle on Google.
One (little cunning) advice I received to deal with 'battle of egos' was to introduce a third person, a third reviewer to break the tie. Ideally the person should be one to whom you both respect (due to authority or whatever) and are ready to take his/her word. Cunning part can be he/she should be the one you know will agree with your review comments/thoughts (which should be easy since you know your concerns are valid). This is assuming such battles are rare and people are open for genuine review comments.
Gotta love Woz. So humble, such a brilliant mind, a pure hacker at heart. Need more guys like him and less turds like Mark Pincus (first one that comes to mind).
> ... never want to tell one story in different ways.
\tangent I know what he's talking about (spinning the truth), so the following is not addressing what he meant, it's just that the bald statement irks me so: when explaining something to somebody, it can be very helpful to express it in familiar terms and concepts that they already understand. You might need to customise the story for each person, and the change might be much more than just a few words, but premised on entirely different concepts.
It's more like: you have a map and you know their intended destination. It's not helpful to just tell them where they should be; nor even to just explain one way to get there (one story). Better to find out where they are, and then give them directions in terms of that. (from my stint as an ugrad tutor/demonstrator).
"The best things I did in my young years leading up to the early Apple computers were done because I had little money and had to think deeply to achieve the impossible."
On a side note, I think this is why more (and arguably better) hackers come out of Eastern Europe/Asia.
Yes having only "little money" forced Woz to really focus, think and experiment. However, I'm sure living in the same neighbourhood/city as people from IBM, Intel, HewlettPackard, etc wasn't bad either ;-)
I'm living in Korea right now and I'm fascinated as to how and why Woz decided to reply to this Korean high school student's email, of all the emails he could've replied to, and how often he does this for people. So random but so awesome.
And what an amazing and thoughtful reply it was, especially considering how lately Woz has become known more for being a loose cannon criticizing Apple in the press, than for his (amazing) previous accomplishments. Not to mention his portrayal in Steve Jobs' biography was less than glowing.
I think my favorite part of every Woz letter and email is how he signs his name upside down. There's not much more endearing than the playfulness and wonder that somehow conveys.
I'm impressed by how well the response was written. Every sentence seemed to be written in a very unambiguous way. The phrasing may have been awkward, but was very appropriate for a Korean audience.
Good point, his email reply got me wondering how familiar he is with Korea and whether he was deliberately tailoring his message for a Korean audience as well.
He talks about not learning from books, not caring about what others think about you, choosing a company based on how they treat you and not how "hot" they are - These are all the complete opposite of what Korea values and the way most Koreans live (book-learning, image-conscious, brand names over personal satisfaction).
I didn't know anything about computer languages except—a friend of mine had gone to MIT and, while he was there, he would Xerox pages out of books that were good topics, and he had sent me a lot of pages back from compiler design books.
I wonder if MIT knew about students sharing information with the outside world 40 years ago. If this copyright violation would have not happened, we'd be in a world without Apple computer, or at least Apple BASIC.
Computer apps are not to be judged by what they do or how well they do it. Rather, it is more important that they feel natural to normal humans and they are led to the right actions.
This statement makes me sad... but I cannot articulate exactly why.
Edit: I like the essay in general. It's very motivating. It would have been great advice when in highschool.
Its because like many nerds, you love to program, and you love THE program.
I find that many technical people actually find that while they keep solving technical problems, the people problem never goes away with their software.
We treat people as idiots and act in condescending manners because we think they are too dumb to use our software or computers in general, but the truth is our software is dumb and a lot of us dont want to change it.
I don't think that's it... Woz talks about internalizing and owning his own thoughts throughout the article, then implies that computer programs (that presumably the student could / should build) ought to be tailored to everyone else's mental models. It seems contradictory. I'd much rather hear something like, "Build something you love using... that's easy for you to use."
